Showing posts with label police abuse; homeland security state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police abuse; homeland security state. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

The Thin Blue Whine, Pt. I: Petulant Police Demand Impunity



























Stand up for thuggery!
Hundreds of Portland, Oregon police officers and supporters surround City Hall during a protest march on behalf of Officer Chris Humphreys, who was placed on administrative leave (that is, paid vacation) following repeated use of unnecessary force -- including the lethal beating of a terrified and helpless 145-lb. man who suffered from schizophrenia.




Violence "is unpredictable, chaotic and thoughtless" by its nature, observed Peter Taylor in a recent op-ed column published in The Oregonian. "It doesn't like to be confined and doesn't lend itself to cooperation.... It is saddening to see the effects of violence on its victims, those who witness it and, yes, also those who wield it against others."


As the final clause in that sentence suggests, Taylor's point is not to sympathize with victims of "unpredictable, chaotic and thoughtless" violence, but rather to defend those who often employ it. Taylor is an officer with the Portland Police Bureau, and his column was intended to explain why he -- along with several hundred others -- took part in a protest march and rally outside Portland's City Hall in defense of Officer Chris Humphreys.



Along with his comrades, Officer Taylor wore a customized t-shirt containing the slogan: "I am Chris Humphreys." He used the same rallying cry to wrap up his op-ed column. And like his comrades, Taylor -- either through invincible innate ignorance, or as a result blindness induced through cult-like devotion to his professional clique (these are not mutually exclusive possibilities) -- cannot understand that this description is an indictment.



Last month, Humprheys was put on administrative leave (which is a "money for nothing" proposition) after shooting a 12-year-old girl point-blank with a "less lethal" beanbag round during what we're all but required to call a "fight" or "altercation" on a MAX train platform in Portland.
The 12-year-old, who was banned from traveling on the train, put up what resistance she could when Officer Aaron Dauchy tried to place her under arrest. She was down on the ground and wasn't going anywhere when Humphreys, after circling around to find the best angle, shot her with the beanbag round. A third officer was present during the incident, just in case the two tax-engorged "heroes" couldn't handle the little girl.

***
***

Two police officers should be able to handle an unarmed 12-year-old girl, even one who weighed 150 pounds, most of it bad attitude.



"I don't care how big she is," commented retired police officer Mike Davis, a 30-year veteran of the Portland Police Bureau. "Two grown men using proper holds should be able to subdue her and get her into the police car without incident."


Davis, who now works for a fitness company, believes that episodes of this sort are the inevitable product that results from adding "less lethal" toys to the arsenal of physically unfit police officers.



"The officers are in pathetic shape, for the most part," Davis told
The Oregonian. "If you don't have any confidence that you can handle something physically, you go up the ladder too quickly on the continuum of force." As a result, police "rely too much on all these little tools we've go: Taser. Mace. Beanbag gun. Asp. You can't shoot everyone. You can't Taser everyone. Well, maybe we can."


When fired at point-blank range, a beanbag round can seriously injure or even kill a victim, so the victim was lucky to escape with a bad bruise. But this is not the only reason the girl shot by Officer Humphreys could consider herself fortunate. The last time Humphreys was involved in a case of excessive force,
the victim didn't survive.


Twice a victim: James Chasse, seen here before being lethally "protected and served" by three of Portland's, ahem, "Finest," was a successful musician before being stricken with schizophrenia.

On September 17 2006 (Constitution Day, ironically enough), Humphreys was one of three law enforcement officers -- two PPB officers and a Multnomah County Sheriff's Deputy -- who chased down and beat to death a 145-pound schizophrenia victim named James Chasse.


Known to many people in his neighborhood as a gentle and talented man -- a successful musician and artist before the onset of his mental illness -- Chasse was beaten so severely by the bold and valiant guardians of the public that nearly all of his ribs were fractured. Several of them had been pulverized. He was also treated to a dose from law enforcement's favorite "non-lethal" toy, the portable electro-shock torture device (more commonly called a Taser).


A coroner's report listed "blunt force trauma" as the cause of Chasse's death. The official report
on Chasse's arrest described the cause of death as "broad-based .... blunt-force chest trauma" consistent with an impact in which the victim was slammed against a hard surface with a body on top of him -- in short, with being "pancaked."


Chasse weighed 142 pounds. Humphreys, a well-fed tax-feeder, outweighed him by roughly 100 pounds. Humphreys initially claimed that he didn't land on Chasse, but rather went "right over and past" him.
That would mean that the fatal concussive blows that wrecked nearly all of Chasse's ribs were the result of either hands-on brutality, or an immaculate beating by unseen creatures from another realm. My money is on some combination of "pancaking" and gang violence inflicted by Humphreys and his comrades.


Witnesses at the scene describe how Humphreys and his colleagues (tax-feeders only operate in packs, remember) repeatedly punched and kicked the victim.
The officers did admit -- in the highly qualified, self-justifying language of trained liars -- to using "pressure point" strikes and judiciously applied blows with fists and forearms. But by that time, according to the post-mortem, were incidental to Chasse's death; the fatal damage had already been done by the time those blows were struck. Chasse's "offense" was public urination.


The beating he endured, however, was "street justice" administered for the supposed crime of "contempt of cop," which he committed by fleeing from the armed strangers who accosted him, as would any rational person incapable of effectively defending himself against the state's designated agents of "unpredictable, chaotic and thoughtless" violence.


A life drains away while tax-feeders dither: The mortally woundedJames Chasse lies hog-tied at the feet of the police who beat him. Why weren't the EMTs -- the only people in this picture ready and inclined to do something worthwhile -- permitted to take him to the hospital?

After being beaten to within an inch of his life, Chasse was taken to jail. He slipped that final inch en route to the hospital -- not in an ambulance, mind you, but bound hand and foot in the back of a police car.


Nearly two hours had elapsed between the beating and Chasse's death, much of it wasted at the local jail. Detention officers, after taking a good look at the victim, refused to book him into the jail, demanding that he be taken to a hospital instead.
Had he received immediate medical help, Chasse might still be alive. An ambulance was available on-site after the arrest. But the Droogs who murdered him -- Officer Humphreys and Kyle Nice, and Deputy Bret Burton, who has since been hired by the Portland Police Bureau -- had other priorities.


When it comes to beating and hog-tying people on the streets,
the murder of James Chasse wasn't Chris Humprheys' first rodeo. An investigation conducted by the independent Wilamette Week discovered that Humphreys "has used force more often than almost all of the other 785 officers" whose arrests were cataloged in a PPB database. Only one officer had been involved in a greater number of "use of force" incidents.


Humphreys was second among 422 officers who used takedowns, restraining holds and pressure points on suspects. Among 295 officers who had used "impact" strikes -- the use of punches, kicks, batons, or flashlights -- Humphreys was at the top of the list. He was number five on the hit parade of officers who had injured suspects. Of the 17 suspects injured at his hands, only two of them were taken to a hospital.



In one episode, Humphreys struck a man 30 times with his baton before discovering -- D'oh! -- that
the victim wasn't the suspect he was after. This incident led to a lawsuit against the Portland municipal government that was settled for $90,000 in taxpayer money. Under the terms of that settlement, Humphreys wasn't required to admit wrongdoing.


Last July, Multnomah County hit up the taxpayers for another $925,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by James Chasse's family. This happened after the PPB review board
reportedly cleared Humphreys and his cohorts of wrongdoing. Not that there was a great deal of suspense involved in awaiting the board's ruling, of course.

Thugs in arms, unite! Sgt. Scott Westermann, chief commissar of the Portland police union.

Even if one concludes that Chasse's death was the result of a tragic mishap rather than a crime, Humphreys still has the kind of baggage that would make him, at best, a dubious representative of the police.


Yet Sgt. Scott Westermann, capo of the Portland police union,
insists that Humphreys has always "exemplified everything one could imagine a police officer should be." That is to say, all cops should be Christopher Humphreys. Which would mean, of course, that there would be nothing wrong with all detainees ending up like James Chasse.


Humphreys was put on "administrative leave" -- a supposedly punitive paid vacation -- after shooting the 12-year-old with the beanbag shotgun. This decision riled up Westermann and his knuckle-draggers, who began howling that Humphreys had "suffered" enough.


Following a union no-confidence vote and the above-mentioned street march, Police Chief Rosie Sizer and Police Commissioner Dan Saltzman decided to placate the armed legions by putting Humphreys back on active duty, albeit behind a desk.



In a spectacularly perverse coda to the affair, Humphreys -- the one whose bulk inflicted the mortal injuries on an incurably sick, helpless man, the same officer who rarely considers it necessary to take the victims of his officially sanctioned violence to the hospital -- has filed a stress disability claim.



This little bit of benefit-spiking will probably pay off handsomely when it comes time for Humphreys to collect his taxpayer-provided union pension. None of his victims -- past or future -- will enjoy the same benefits, of course. And the taxpayers will continue to absorb the costs of indemnifying the "unpredictable, chaotic and thoughtless" violence carried out by police who insist that the public should see Humphreys as Chaucer's "parfait, gentil knight," rather than a marauding misfit with a government-issued license to kill.



Whole lotta Rosie: Portland Police Chief Rosie Sizer folded like a poorly manufactured deck chair in the face of the local Jackboot Union's demands. (Hey, is it just me, or does Rosie look like Sean Hannity in a Princess Di wig?)

"Portland police are all about imposing discipline, not exercising it," observes Oregonian columnist Steve Duin, who laments the culpable neglect displayed by an "aloof [police] commissioner, absentee mayor and anything-goes police chief."


That Humphreys is considered a model police officer by the police union comes as no surprise to critics of the increasingly militarized Portland Police Bureau.


As is the case elsewhere in recent years, the PPB has become increasingly aggressive even as violent crime has continued the downward trend it has followed pretty consistently for more than a decade and a half. Duin lists some particularly egregious examples:


*Eunice Crowder, a 71-year-old blind woman, was pepper-sprayed "with such enthusiasm that her glass eye popper out of its socket"; police then shot her with a Taser four times "as she lay in the dirt." None of the officers responsible for that atrocity were disciplined


*Barbara Weich, a 58-year-old art gallery owner, was convicted of "contempt of cop" when she reacted with disdain after being given a ticket by motorcycle cop Greg Adrian. After pursuing Weich for a short distance and pulling her over, Adrian hit her in the face "with enough force to leave bruising on her cheek and neck," then grabbed her arm, pulled it through the window, twisted it, put his weight on it, and fractured it. Adrian, naturally, was never disciplined.


The experience of Don Joughin's family offers a useful snapshot of the vulgar arrogance and casual violence that define Portland's police culture.


In August 2002, George W. Bush inflicted himself on Portland, which meant that the local police were deployed in riot gear to keep demonstrators caged inside "free speech zones." At one point a contingent of police unleashed a volley of pepper-spray against protesters who weren't content to be cattle-penned in a holding area blocks away from the presidential route.


Local activist Don Joughin, who had brought his wife and three children, including an eleven-month-old baby, sought to leave the area without being trampled by the protesters or baptized in pepper spray by the Jackboots. He turned to a police officer obstructing an exit and asked how he and his family could leave the embattled intersection. "He pointed and said to exit to the [northeast], into the spraying police opposite him," Joughin recalled.


With the crowd pressing down on him and his children, Joughin pleaded with the officer to let him and his family through. "He looked at me, and drew out his can from his hip and sprayed directly at me," Joughin recalled. Joughin didn't bear the brunt of that criminal assault, but his three-year-old caught some of the blast. The assailant then turned on Joughin's wife and the infant "and doused both of their heads entirely from a distance of less than 3 feet," Joughin recalled.




















Pure, unadulterated viciousness:
Don Joughin comforts his eleven-month-old son after the infant was doused in pepper spray by one of Portland's "Finest."



For several panicked minutes, Joughin tried to flee the area and find help for his family. The police -- you know, those helpful people who, according to official propaganda, are supposed to protect innocent people from criminal violence -- reacted by closing ranks and blocking the Joughin family's escape. They didn't relent until someone in "authority" gave them permission to let the anxious man and his family leave.


The last thing Joughin heard from the heroes in blue as he departed was the derisive comment, "That's why you shouldn't bring kids to protests."


Indeed: If you do, there's a good chance they'll be victims of a criminal assault -- one that would be described as an act of terrorism involving a WMD (a chemical weapon) if carried out against a government official -- at the hands of the police.


We are constantly told that the increasingly frequent episodes of criminal violence by police are aberrations, and that "most" police are good, decent, honorable people. Like many others, I know people in that line of work who meet that description.


My question is this: Just where the hell are those good, decent, honorable police officers when their comrades are committing crimes of the kind committed against Don Joughin's children? How can a police officer direct a weaponized stream of caustic solution into the face of a terrified eleven-month-old baby in the serene knowledge that nobody among his peers would object? What does it say about the police culture in Portland that the reaction of the officers on-site was to rebuke the father of that infant, rather than grabbing the assailant and beating some decency into him?


Well, thanks to the Portland police union, we have our answer. This kind of thing is to be expected of police officers in that city, because each of them is Christopher Humphreys.


Please be sure to tune in for Pro Libertate Radio each weeknight at 6:00-7:00 Mountain Time (7:00-8:00 Central) on the Liberty News Radio Network.





















Thursday, November 5, 2009

Why The Innocent Flee From The Police



















"Why did he run?"
This question thrusts itself upon us every time an unarmed or otherwise harmless person is gunned down while fleeing from police.


Often that inquiry takes the form that assumes the guilt of the victim: "
If he did nothing wrong, why did he run?" It's also common for that second version to contort itself into a nicely circular argument: "Well, he ran, and resisting arrest is a crime, so obviously he got what was coming to him."


For reasons unclear to a mind not enthralled by statist assumptions, most people simply assume that both reason and morality dictate an unqualified duty to surrender without cavil or complaint whenever armed, violence-prone strangers in peculiar government-issued garb seek to restrain one of us.


This is why police are trained to interpret any hesitation, reluctance to cooperate, inhospitable body language, or verbal expression of resentment as "resisting arrest" and thus a justification for the use of "pain compliance" -- or even lethal force.
Police and their apologists likewise insist -- contrary to both law and judicial precedent -- that there is no right to resist even a clearly unwarranted or abusive arrest, or even for a citizen to take steps to protect himself when he's on the receiving end of unjustified physical violence from police.


Police are constantly catechized about the dangers they encounter when they conduct traffic stops or detain people on the street. Why, the random "civilian" they encounter might be armed, trained in the use of weapons, and prepared to use violence without warning!
This is to say that this hypothetical "civilian" would be .... just like the typical police officer.


"Can we assault and brutalize innocent people with impunity? Yes We Can!"



"Officer safety" must be paramount in such encounters, we are told. If a policeman is just a bit too quick to fire up the Taser or pull the trigger, it's because he has a dangerous and stressful job.



Are we therefore to assume that encounters between police and mere "mundanes" aren't particularly dangerous and stressful to the latter?




Given that police claim the supposed authority to pre-empt potential violence in the name of "officer safety," we're entitled to ask: Why isn't "citizen safety" a legally effective defense for preemptive violence by law-abiding people to protect themselves against unjustified violence by police?




At present, the only form of "preemption" considered legally and morally acceptable is unqualified submission. People wrongfully on the receiving end of police violence are given the same advice that used to be given to potential rape victims: Don't resist, don't fight back -- it will only turn out much worse, and you may be killed.



Anyone who doesn't immediately submit to arrest, irrespective of the circumstances, is "going to lose and possibly hurt yourself and others in the process,"
insists retired Milwaukee Police Officer Mark Zupnik. "You do not have the right to resist."



"There are several more beneficial ways of pleading your case and challenging your arrest," Zupnik continues. "Get a lawyer, file a motion in court, go to pre-trial and plead your case. Make a formal complaint challenging your arrest to the proper authority, but don't resist or fight! It will add to your problems even if the arrest was a mistake. You don't have the right to resist a legal arrest and it's that simple. In most states, resisting arrest is an additional charge up to a felony, even for minor physical resistance."


No recourse:
San Jose resident Scott Wright was beaten and Tased by police, suffering a broken arm. He was then charged with "resisting arrest." His "offense" was to reach into his vehicle to wash his dirty hands. (San Jose Mercury News photo.)



Zupnik, like others of an authoritarian cast of mind, embrace a tautological view of what constitutes a "legal" arrest: It's any arrest carried out by a police officer, who supposedly embodies the law. This is why he warns that resistance in any situation will result in a criminal charge which will be filed before "a usually unsympathetic judge" who will perceive you as someone who "fought the law" -- which is always on the side of the state's armed enforcers, from this perspective.



Except the rarest of cases, seeking redress for an unlawful arrest from the "proper authority" is a singularly useless exercise. In some jurisdictions -- such as San Jose, California, a city in which, on average, three people are arrested for "resisting arrest" every single day -- it is entirely pointless to file a complaint over unwarranted arrests, since they are
never upheld.



An investigation by the San Jose Mercury News found that in of the 117 cases in which a complaint was filed with the police department's internal review board, not a single one was "sustained." That includes incidents such as the arrest of Scott Wright, who was beaten, tased, and had his arm broken by police before being charged with resisting arrest.



At the time his valiant protectors arrived at his home, Wright was working on an old Cadillac; he provoked the gang assault by reaching into his van to wash off his greasy hands, a gesture that caused the Heroes in Blue (tm) -- a timid, skittish lot, as easily frightened as a young doe -- to think that he was reaching for a weapon.




As is almost always the case in such episodes, Wright was charged with resisting arrest even though no weapon was found, and no other criminal act was alleged.


Sure, that spurious charge was dismissed -- after the victim had spent a great deal of money seeking treatment for the injuries inflicted on him, and another sum to pay the legal expenses incurred because the cops, in an effort to cover their tax-fattened asses, filed a "cover charge" against the innocent man.
And of course, the police department cleared the assailants of any wrongdoing, because their criminal assault on Wright was in harmony with "department policy."



He was "protected and served":
San Jose resident Joseph Ballard bleeds into the sidewalk outside a nightclub after being tased by the police, who say that his injury was the result of a "fall." (San Jose Mercury News photo)





"What happened to Wright is no isolated event," the
Mercury News relates. "Hundreds of times a year interactions between San Jose police and residents where no serious crime has occurred escalate into violence."


"Many times the reason for the encounter is as innocuous as jaywalking, missing bike headlamps, or failing to signal a turn," continues the report. "But often, as incidents develop, police determine the suspect is uncooperative and potentially violent and strike the first blow."




Joseph Ballard was a victim of preemptive violence: Officer Justin Holliday shot him with a Taser outside a nightclub while Ballard was running to catch a ride home. As he bled into the sidewalk, Holliday confected a story about Ballard threatening to shoot a bouncer and running to the parking lot to get his gun.


As it happens, the victim had neither a gun nor a car, and the bouncer said that Ballard had done nothing wrong -- yet he was still charged with interfering with police and thrown in jail after he was released from the hospital.




After two police arrived at her home in August 2008, San Jose resident Ruth Mendiola earned an assault and a charge of "resisting arrest" when she asked to see a warrant
the cops were supposedly there to deliver. She was on the phone with the police department trying to verify the identity of the officers when she was seized by one of them, who kneed her in the ribs and then threw her on a bed to handcuff her.



David Haflich -- a Caucasian with light brown hair -- was severely beaten by San Jose police when he was mistaken for a suspect in a child abduction -- a Latino with black hair. Ordered to hit the ground, Haflich froze in his tracks, an act of insubordination serious enough, supposedly, to justify a gang-tackle and beating by police, who charged him with "resisting arrest" even though he wasn't a criminal suspect.



In 206 court cases in which the most serious charge against the defendant was "resisting arrest," the paper documented that "145 -- 70 percent of the cases -- involved the use of force by officers," observes the Mercury News. It's as if a street gang were routinely committing acts of criminal violence against inoffensive pedestrians, motorists, and bicyclists ... which, come to think of it, is exactly what is going on.


This kind of officially sanctioned lawlessness is a general affliction.


In Ohio, police who showed up at a house fire to gawk and collect overtime tased and arrested a 19-year-old who had been helping friends and family escape the blaze. This happened after one of the torpid donut-devourers hurled profane invective at one of the residents of the burning house, a young woman, who had asked them why they were standing around in subsidized stupefaction while people were in danger.



Last May, Minneapolis resident Rolando Ruiz was stopped by a police officer, who instructed Ruiz to place his hands on the hood of the officer's car. Ruiz cooperated -- and was shot in the neck with a Taser anyway.


The Minneapolis PD's "use of force" policy permits such gratuitous use of potentially lethal violence, and neither the policy nor any particular case is subject to civilian review or oversight.


Last June, in Everett, Washington, a 51-year-old man was gunned down in his Corvette by a police officer who had grown weary of trying to talk the intoxicated driver out of his car. At the time, the drunken driver was boxed in -- parked cars on either side, a police cruiser blocking him from behind, a chain link fence in front.



The officer spent perhaps five minutes trying to reason with the driver before pulling out his Taser; the drunk reacted -- understandably, if tragically -- by trying, unsuccessfully, to pull out of the parking space. That provoked the officer to pull his firearm and murder the driver, firing eight shots into the car while exclaiming "Enough is enough -- time to end this!"



Every death of a police officer "in the line of duty" is solemnly memorialized and carefully tabulated. However, there is no official record kept of civilians who are unjustly killed or otherwise brutalized by police.


Each encounter between the police and innocent civilians is a potentially deadly experience for the latter. Thus the real question is not "Why do innocent people flee from the police?" but rather, "What rational person would submit to the police if he had any reasonable hope of eluding or resisting them?"



Are you a Freedom Zealot? If so, please join me for Pro Libertate Radio, a daily dose of sedition brought to you by the Liberty News Radio Network.













Available at Amazon.com










Dum spiro, pugno!