Thuggish cops transcend borders

This is disgusting. That it takes place in Canada at least give me a smidgen of hope that the cops will be dealt with and punished for their criminal assault on a handicapped woman.

You can see that this woman has cerebral palsy (some reports say multiple sclerosis) and has trouble walking. Three fat cops decided to take up the sidewalk by walking side-by-side expecting the peons, who they are used to ordering about, to move out of their way. This woman has trouble getting around them and tries to walk between them. So the one thug in blue reaches over and shoves her to the ground. He and his fellow "officers" then walk past without bothering to see if the woman needed any assistance.

Yes, I think the pig that did the pushing should spend some time in jail for assaulting this woman. That she was handicapped, as far as I'm concerned, ought to mean his sentence is enhanced for assaulting someone so vulnerable. In addition the other officers should be discharged immediately as well. They were present when a police officer criminally assaulting a handicapped woman merely because he thought she was in his way. That is a crime. They did not arrest the officer committing the assault nor did they report him. They are accessories after the fact to the assault and should be punished as such. I absolutely believe that police officers should have less leeway in how they act than does the public. They are supposed to represent the law and as representatives of the law they ought to be held to higher standards.

Let us look at how Officer Thug excused his monstrous behavior after he realized he was caught on tape. Constable Taylor Robinson said he was sorry and that he pushed the woman to the ground because he thought she was trying to take his gun. Sure, that's the ticket, she was going for his gun. If you buy that I've got a virgin birth to sell you.

Here is what is wrong with that puny excuse. If he thought she was going for his gun then why didn't he arrest her? The fact that he didn't arrest her, or even try to do so, is because he knew that she wasn't going for his gun. He could pretend he only realized his mistake after he pushed her to the ground and that is believable except for the fact that he then refused to help her up.

His action betray his excuses. If he thought she was truly going for his gun he should have arrested her. If he realized she wasn't going for his gun then he should have apologized and helped her to her feet. Instead he shoved her to the ground and walked away indicating no concern that she was either a gun-stealing criminal who needed arresting, or a handicapped woman who needed assistance.

The most consistent theory is that he felt she was in his way, didn't believe she was going for his gun, pushed her to the ground because he is a thug and didn't help her up because he meant to push her to the ground. But, he then discovers the whole incident is recorded on tape and he has to make fancy excuses to cover up his own criminal actions against a handicapped woman.

He only reported the incident hours after it happened, and I bet after he learned it was taped. Let's see if Vancouver does the right thing and fires the officers and brings them up on criminal charges of assault and battery.

Here is a second video to remind you that wild animals can be as dangerous as cops.

10 Rules for Dealing with the Police

Murdering, raping cop protects students by beating them.

I have long opposed putting cops into the schools. Cops are dangerous and should be avoided. Watch this news story. Here is a special ed student who was beaten violently by a police officer for not having his shirt tucked in—that's it. If you think that's bad, wait until you hear the rest.




The Dolton Police Department was reluctant to release the name of the officer involved, Christopher Lloyd. The police officer "has a troubling history that includes killing a man in a case of disputed self-defense and is now in an Indiana jail for an unrelated rape charge." What a peach! Here is more: "According to Lake County, Ind., court documents, he [Lloyd] held a pillow over the woman's face while sexually assaulting her Sept. 14 and had previously threatened her with a knife." He is also facing a lawsuite from his ex-wife who says Lloyd "gunned down her new husband Cornel McKinney in front of their children outside their home on Feb. 17 2008."

Yet, it appears that Lloyd had no problem finding a job with the police, where he got to beat up kids for the crime of having an untucked shirt. Here is another video from security cameras at the school, see if the boy in question acted in any manner worthy of a violent beating.


Chicago Police never pressed charges for the killing saying it was self-defence. But get this, the dead man was shot 24 times, according to an autopsy. That means Lloyd emptied an entire magazine of bullets and reloaded to continue shooting. That is not self-defence, that is someone acting with anger and hatred. To say Lloyd has "anger management" issues would be an understatment. Yet the police felt comfortable putting this man into the school system.

Dolton is facing a heavy law suit and in my opinion the award ought to come out of the police budget starting with the salaries of chief and other top offices and working down from there. These sorts of violent antics by thugs in uniform are all too common. Another reason to home school, or seek out private education, is to get you kids out of the way of violent cops. Government youth-holding centers, once called schools, are not the place to get an education as this poor boy learned. My view is that one should look at police officers as members of a well-known, violent gang, who happen to have "Get Out of Jail" cards in their pockets. The rest falls into place from there.

Dangerous underwear dancers arrested: Atlanta saved.

The police attack on the Stonewall Inn, in 1969, is credited with the start of the gay rights movement in the United States. It was the first time that gays fought back and the police were horrified. The police like to pick on people especially if they feel the people won't fight back. The cops also like to use their power to indulge their own small-minded prejudices and bigotry. And it isn't just gays that they attack.

A few weeks back the Fort Worth police, in conjuction with agents from the liquor authority, attacked a gay bar. They swarmed into the bar in force and started cuffing people. One man was thrown to the ground and suffered a brain concussion that hospitalized him in serious condition. The police claimed it was because on a previous night people were seen leaving the bar who police thought might be drunk. Really? Drinking? In a bar?

Patrons made lots of accusations which the police and liquor authority denied. Alas evidence later came out that pretty much showed that the cops were liars—you would think that this was assumed given the reputation of American police officers for being dishonest, bigoted and violent. The liquor authority ended up with egg on its face and admitted their agents had falsified statements and acted in ways against departmental policy. The ruckus in Fort Worth just died down. So now the police in Atlanta engage in something similar against a gay bar there, although not quite as violently.

Once again the charges the police concocted are less than convincing. First the police claim that the raid against the patrons of the bar was done at the behest of the patrons of the bar. They claim customers of the bar filed a "volume of complaints." In another statement the police said they received "several complaints with descriptive information about alleged criminal conduct" in the bar. Remember this is the American South so "criminal conduct" could be something as dangerous as offering to sell someone a dildo. Georgia is infested with Jesus-addicts which means the legislation there particularly intrusive in people's private lives. Moralists tend to want a state as omnipotent as their alleged deity.

In another statement police claimed it was "illicit sex" that was what they putting a stop to. Good thing, I feel safer already. But elsewhere they said they were after drugs. I sincerely doubt that any actual complainants will ever be identified. Why? Because when cops want to justify a particular action they take against a particular place or person they invent such complaints. They will refer to them as the reason they had to take action. The cops invent the complaints and then act on them.

In one statement police claimed that police officers "observed criminal behavior taking place" but, they don't explain what behavior or why those "criminals" were not arrested. The police then absurdly claimed that their actions against dancing is to "deter criminal activity in order to create a safe environment." Safe? From what? Dancing? For the record, I don't feel unsafe because people dance. I do feel unsafe anytime a cop is within 200 feet of me.

Of course, anonymous complaints about "drugs" in any establishment that caters to the clubbing scene (gay or straight) which has a significant number of people present at any time, is likely to have someone there who has some illegal drugs on them. I would bet if you searched the purses of every Jesus-monger at a large Baptist Church you would find some illegal drugs along the way as well. No particular individual was being targeted, which means the police had no information about any specific drug dealing going on at the club. But they raided the club and then searched every single patron in the hope of finding some illegal drugs to justify their attack.

The problem was that they didn't find any. Personally I consider that a miracle. These days you couldn't search a cub scout pack without finding drugs. But according to news reports "no drugs were found, and none of those arrested face narcotics charges." That has to be embarrassing.

Update: Atlanta police are having a damn hard time keeping their story straight. The latest report I've read now have the police claiming that the complaints came, not from patrons, but from neighbors. A check of the satellite photos from Google show almost no neighbors at all. The building adjacent to the club is vacant. On the other side is a parking lot. Across the street is a park. A doughnut shop is half a block away. And now they claimed it "public sex" that was the criminal act, not drugs as they previously claimed. But they still haven't explained why no one was ever arrested for the crime that the cops claim took place.

In yet another version a spokeswoman for the department says that there were two complaints, one each at two different "tip lines." Anyone want to bet the same person made both calls? The anonymous caller claimed that Thursdays were "sex night" at the club. And, even more bizarre is the claim that the club took loud speakers and pointed them toward apartment buildings a distance away "playing sounces of gay men having sex." However the local "Security Alliance" of businesses and residents in the general area says that they did not initiate the complaint and "we never have received any complaints, reports, or observations about criminal activity in any way associated with the Eagle. The spokesman said: "I have spent much time on the streets of Midtown, and look under every rock to identify problem spots. Eagle is not one of those problem spots, and we have always considered the Eagle to be a good neighbor."

My guess is the one demented individual made up all these accusations, made both calls to two different lines, and then relied on the natural bigotry and thuggery of the police department to do their work for them. In essence, the police were fag bashers by proxy, which doesn't mean they wouldn't have enjoyed the task on their own.

So why was the staff of the bar arrested? That evening the bar sponsored an "underwear" party. This meant some people were dancing in their underwear. Good lord, underwear today tends to be less revealing than the swimsuits of my youth-when Speedos were the fashion. Mark Spitz posed in less for his famous Olympics photo. However, the creative thugs in blue, argued that people dancing in underwear is "adult entertainment" and the bar was not licensed for "adult entertainment." No doubt the morons in Atlanta's police department would say the following video is thus hard-core pornography.



For the record, a quick search on Youtube shows over 10,000 vidoes posted by criminals showing themselves dancing in their underwear. It is my suspicion that none of these dangerous criminals were in possession of a government license allowing them to so dance.

Press reports say the police literally searched every person in the bar. Exactly what "reasonable cause" did they have to conduct searches on every person in a business? Apparently anonymous drug complaints, or sex complaints (they haven't gotten their story straight yet to decide which one they will use). Of course this is the same police department that manufactured a false statement to a judge in order to secure a search warrant on an elderly woman who lived alone. The police lied about the circumstances completely and then conducted an armed raid on the woman's home where she was killed. Only because this old woman died was a thorough investigation done and it was proven that the cops had lied throughout the process and had no reason to raid the woman's home. They claimed an anonymous tip told them it was a drug dealers house. Liars!

According to the reports I've read about a dozen or more police officers swept into the bar and forced all patrons to lie on the floor. Each individual was searched for the non-existent drugs. And staff members were carted off to jail for allowing patrons to dance in their underwear. In addition to the dozen or more uniformed officers it is believed that ten other officers were inside the club in plain clothes. So they had 10 officers inside. Notice that no one was arrested for any of the crimes used as an excuse to raid the bar. No one was arrested for "illicit sex" and in Georgia that doesn't take much. No one was arrested for possessing or distributing drugs. And the only "criminal activity" the police officers could find was people dancing while wearing underwear—no nudity even.

Patrons who were inside said that after the first search, which turned up NO drugs, the police then searched most the patrons a second time—in the hope, no doubt, of getting lucky and justifying the "complaints" they invented. One patron said: "I was held in the bar for over an hour; they were going through and searching people. They tore the bar apart. They searched the cash register, they searched the ice machine they were ripping things off the walls. It was ridiculous. They were in full SWAT gear." I bet as the searches progressed, and no drugs were found, the police got more and more desperate. They just assumed that searching enough would turn up somebody with drugs. Whoops! Didn't happen and instead they were caught making up tales to justify their thuggery.

For the Atlanta police this is a step toward civility. At least they were murdering old ladies this time. But they did get some dangerous people who were dancing without a permit. Fuck! Really, do we need these assholes? The honest truth is that I'd rather take my risks with criminals than cops. The criminals aren't as violent and they don't have the politicial system trying to protect them. If I shoot a criminal who attacks me it's called "self-defense." If the criminal is wearing a cop's uniform is called assaulting an office and usually brings about the death penalty inflicted on the spot, without judge or jury.

Out for a walk, beat up by cops

This video seems to show a man who was peacefully standing on corner while engaging in one of his favorite activities, walking around his own neighborhood. A police cruiser pulls up. A police officer orders the man to zip up his jacket. He does. Then, with no aggressive, or illegal acts by the man a second police officer attacks him with a nightstick beating the man repeatedly.

A local surveillance captured the incident. This blog stands by its claim that the police are dangerous criminals and that law-abiding citizens should avoid them whenever possible. The numbers of innocent people attacked by this power-hungry gangs in blue are legion. Don't be one of them. Warn you kids, the cops are not their friends. Don't speak to police officers unless spoken to and then only respond politely, they are easily provoked and will attack and then will lie about the incident afterwards.

This video speaks for itself.

Our second video needs some explaining. An ambulance was rushing a woman to the hospital with sirens going. A police car, also with sirens going was gaining on the ambulance. The driver of the ambulance did not hear the second siren, understandable given he was in a vehicle with its own siren. The ambulance was trying to pass a car when the police vehicle caught up with it and didn't see the police until that moment. The cop, upset that the ambulance didn't give him the right away immediately pulled the ambulance preventing it from taking the woman to the hospital.

Other thugs from the local police showed up to put the squeeze, literally, on the ambulance driver. After all we know what ruffians ambulance drivers tend to be and how gentle and caring your typical law oinkifer is. Here is the video taken by the son of the woman in the ambulance. The local prosecutor says no charges will be filed against the officer. Of course not! They are above the law. They are obsessed with their own authority. I can only guess they suffer from some sort of deficiency which causes them to become aggressive and violent. Don't want no short.... around here.



As I read various newspapers in general I keep coming across new stories of police abuse. They aren't hard to find. In this case Mesa, Arizona, police officer Nicholas Webster arrested a drunk man on "suspicion" of public urination and jaywalking, late one night. He claims he used violence against the man because the handcuffed man tried to "head-butt" him. Unfortunately surveillance videos show otherwise.

As an aside, why is it that video of various incidents with police officers indicate that the officers lie so often in their official reports and in court. Considering how often these videos prove the officers to be liars, exactly why would any sane judge or jury take the testimony of a police officer as being trustworthy? Surely, the accumulative evidence shows just the opposite.

Webster claimed, in his report, that the man made an aggressive move in his direction and that all the police officer did was deflect that. The video, instead, showed that the officer first gabbed his victim, Sean Okoli, by the neck and slammed his face into the read windshield of the police vehicle. In other words, Webster is dishonest, forged a police report, and possibly lied under oath.

Here is a video of the incident in question.