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.

Another dog murdered by violent cops

Police came to search her house because they said her grandson was involved with drugs. The woman says her grandson hasn't lived with her for 12-years. She asks the police if she can put her dog out in the backyard or in the bathroom. They tell her the bathroom is fine. So the dog is shut up in the bathroom. A cop opens the door to the bathroom and shots the dog, claiming as they always do, that the dog attacked them. Why is it that in case after case, other eyewitnesses to such incidents have stories that almost never correspond with what the cops say? Could it be that cops routinely lie? I think the answer is a resounding yes.

Fucking disgusting.

Watch at your own risk.

I am going to have to trust the descriptions given by others. If this video shows what they say it shows then I simply can't bring myself to watch something this disturbing. Here is what I understand happened.

A bulldog had barked at some children. Someone called the police (which is my mind is always an invitation to trouble—never invite violent, gang-members to help you, if you can help it). A woman tied the dog up, an indication that the dog was more bark than bite otherwise the woman would not have easily restrained the dog.

Members of the Men-in-Blue gang show up on the scene, always anxious to shoot someone or something, just to prove that they really do have big dicks and an IQ over 78. The gangmbember puts a leash on the dog, again no resistance by the dog. Then the gang members try to use a long, metal rod to hook the dog. Where the dog no doubt has seen ropes or leashes before the long metal rod upsets the dog, who is still safely restrained but barks.

The gang member stops trying to snare the dog, the dog stops barking and lies down peacefully. A second attempt to snare the dog succeeds. The dog struggles and than stands still, doing nothing aggressive. Then gang member Doug Howell, who thinks we should recognize him as an "officer", pulls his big gun out and shoots the dog in the chest. The dog falls to the ground and then the gang member pumps a bullet into the dogs head. No doubt he had an orgasm during the process.

I have zero respect for cops—none, not as cops. They are violent, they are dangerous, they are authoritarian. This is the job that schoolyards bullies grow up and salivate over. It appeals to people who like to push others around, who like to hurt others, to show off their pea brains by killing whenever they think they can get away with it.

My rule is treat a cop is like a cobra. Only highly trained individuals should handle them. Otherwise avoid them, never let one into your house, never invite them to come to your aid. Never go to the aid of a cop and do your best to avoid cooperating with them in any way. If I saw a police officer in a struggle I would turn and walk in a different direction. I would not summon help for him, I would not offer help to him. If I saw a police officer chasing someone, and I knew which direction the "suspect" ran I would have memory failure if the police officer asked me, unless I personally witnessed the suspect hurting another person.

I read too many news stories where these thugs are bullying people, killing dogs, lying in court, faking evidence and generally behaving like criminals. I am not interested in the few "good cops" since they are too few to worry about. It is the good cops who cover up for the bad cops. Other cops know when cops misbehave but they have each other's back. In that case, they don't have my support, unless I have incontrovertible evidence that the person they are engaged with is a worse human being than the cop, I will not cooperate. However, based on my experiences in life my assumption is that the cop is more likely to be scum than the person he is arresting. His "suspect" is quite likely guilty of a victimless crime or something minor, but cops regularly commit major crimes—that is they violate the rights of peaceful people regularly.

I don't come to my position lightly. I have three family members who are cops, who I hope are not typical cops. Just as some cobras might be cute and cuddly I will go with the odds. And the odds of violent, deceitful, thuggish cop is high enough that I take the view I do. I accept that even a majority of cops would not personally act in the manner I describe. But their compliance or consent is necessary for the minority to get away with such things.

The odds of getting involved with a bad cop is significant higher than the odds of a terrorist attack, winning the lottery, or being struck by lightening. I have run into more bad cops than I have had serious traffic accidents. But just as I wear seat belts and take precautions in case of an accident, I also take precautions when dealing with cops—which means I don't call for them if I can at all help it, I try to avoid them when I see them, I would not stop to assist one, help one or given them the time of day (I know people who did and regretted it). I would not give police information that would help them apprehend someone, as I consider the odds that they violating rights to be higher than the odds that they are protecting rights. And, if I know that the odds have shifted in one particular case, then I will shift my position to assist them. But assisting cops has to be justifed to me by clear evidence otherwise my attitude of total non-cooperation persists.

And, in my view, if this video is accurately described, then I hope this cop is ostracized by his community. He deserves to be put in the most violent, dangerous prison around, with the word "cop" tattoed on his forehead and a welcome sign stapled to his ass. I look at cops the way I look at violent criminals and rapists. I have no sympathy for them , for the same reasons. The differences are too minor to worry about.

Another cop who needs to be canned!

Here is the news story on this incident.



What happened here is simple. A large group of people took advantage of the snowstorm in DC (no doubt they are all victims of climate change) by having a snowball fight. Around 100 people or so showed up for this snowball fight. A car got hit with some snowballs. Oh my! But the man driving the car was the closest thing to god on earth (at least in his view). He was a DC cop in plainclothes.

The cop jumps out of the car and threatens people with a gun and arrest. If you don't think power corrupts then you don't understand cops. At one time the people of England were allowed to own guns but cops were unarmed. I'm not entirely sure that wasn't the ideal. Cops are dangerous. The CNN report left out some thing. For instance, I love the crowd chanting at the police officer: "Don't bring a gun to a snowball fight." Others screamed at the police when they showed up as back-up, that their officer was entirely out of line. Of course he was. A police officer who pulls a gun on a crowd of people having a snowball fight doesn't deserve to stay on the force. Here is some raw footage of the incident which CNN didn't really show and basically talked over.

America's most authoritarian sheriff

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona, likes to promote himself as America's "toughest" sheriff. If by tough, one means authoritarian, then that would be accurate. There are few sheriffs in the modern world with a similar contempt for the law and the constitution. Actually it is the law that he disrespects. The constitution is just completely off his radar entirely.

Because of the numerous complaints that Arpaio engages in racial profiling the Immigration thugs told Arpaio he was no longer allowed to act on their behalf. And when Immigration thinks you are in contempt of the law and the constitution that says a lot. To get around the ban Arpaio now uses the slightest excuse to stop anyone who looks too brown for liking. Then the individual, if suspected of being an undocumented immigrant is arrest for human trafficking. The law exists to criminalize individuals smuggling in undocumented workers. Arpaio argues that any such person has smuggled himself and is thus susceptible to his authority. The same logic, I would note, would justify the arrest of all individuals under the age of 18 for child molestation if they masturbate.

Recently one of Arpaio's underlings was in court when a suspect was being sentenced. He walks over to a table for the defense attorney and swipes a privileged document. His theft was caught on video. Officer Adam Stoddard pretends he has the right to steal documents from an attorney's desk in court by claiming that it had "suspicious words" on it. Of course, even if true, the only way to know that was to pull the paper from the pile and look at it in violation of the attorney's rights. And that would invalidate any information he gathered by the act.

The judge says the officer is in contempt of court. More importantly he has shown a contempt for the law and shouldn't be a police officer. Not so, says Sheriff Joe, with his usual contempt for law and justice. The judge told the officer he must make a public apology to the attorney for violating her rights and the privacy of her documents. I would have preferred legal charges.

Sheriff Joe went ballistic—he is the law as are his deputies and they need not follow the law. Arpaio started his counterattack by claiming that attorney has links with other attorneys who allegedly smuggled contraband to prisoners (whatever that means in Arpaioland). But having "links" is not the same thing as having committed a crime. This was just Arpaio trying to tarnish the reputation of someone who embarrassed him by catching his arrogant staff acting with the same contempt for the law that Arpaio exhibits.

King Arpaio has ordered his sheriff to refuse to apologize for his actions. Arpaio says: "My officer was doing his job, and I will not stand by allow him to be thrown to the wolves by the courts because they feel pressure from the media on this situation. I decide who holds press conferences and when they are held regarding this Sheriff's Office." Doing his job? Theft is now part of the job of the sheriff's department? (This is the same department that took a tank to delivery to arrest someone on a minor charge. They left the tank parked on a hill when it rolled backwards smashing into a car almost killing a woman and her child.)

If the officer doesn't apologize he is in contempt of court and can face jail time for it. Personally I think Arpaio ought to be sharing the cell with him. Dissect Arpaio's comment and you will see several distortions of the truth—usually called lies in moral circles. An apology for acting illegally is hardly "being thrown to the wolves." And the officer was caught at the time and held in contempt. The media didn't have time to put pressure on the judge. But Arpaio has never been concerned about facts.

One local attorney, Jason Lamm, said: "Never before has this community seen such a blatant violation of the attorney-client privilege." Arpaio's claim is that the sheriff was attempting "to protect the people inside the courtroom." From what? A piece of paper? Words? It's just more Arpaio bullshit.

Finally, the real motivation comes out.

Most people have heard the story of Eric Williamson, the man arrested for being naked in his own house. I hesitated on blogging about the case because I felt information was missing. In addition the story was changing fairly quickly.

First, we were told the woman had been cutting across private property and saw the man inside the house naked. She called police who came rushing down in force. When there were questions about the woman being on private property and not on public property the story evolved. Now she claimed to have seen the man twice, once while cutting across the property where he lived and a second time in front of his house on the sidewalk. I found that story change a bit convenient.

I assumed that this second claim on the woman's part would cause the police to reconsider the arrest. Instead they redoubled their efforts and acted in ways I thought highly improper. The police distributed a leaflet basically begging other people to file charges against the man by claiming they too had seen him naked. It is one thing if others say this happened repeatedly but when the police solicit complaints they are, whether wittingly or not, soliciting people to file false accusations. There are plenty of people who want their 15 minutes of fame and wouldn't mind falsely accusing another person to do so.

It seemed odd to me that the police seemed to have so much invested in this case. The easiest thing to do would have been to say that all complaints have to be investigated and leave it at that. But the police were actively trying to get other people to make charges as well. I wanted to know why. Now the Washington Post has revealed the reason:

As officers tell it, the 45-year-old woman, the wife of a Fairfax police officer, was walking her son to school about 8:40 a.m. along a well-traveled path between public tennis courts and the house where Williamson had been living for three months when a noise drew her attention to a side door.

Now their extraordinary interest in proving the man's guilt is clear. The woman is married to a police officer and the boys in blue will always rally around one of their own, no matter whether their own is wrong or not. It is just the same crap we see from cops repeatedly, where they will lie and fake evidence to support one of their own, even if one of their own is a criminal. I'm not saying the woman is a criminal but she was trespassing on private property and she saw a naked man because of it. Get over it.

Ah, but what about her child. Actually it was her son and I suggest the boy has seen a penis before. The man didn't have anything the boy lacked. And the description of the incident that has been given indicates the man was not a flasher. Exhibitionists usually don't operate from inside their own homes, they prefer to ambush people. Of course, there are exceptions. Exhibitionists also do this because it is sexually stimulating to them. All the descriptions of the incident lead one to conclude this man was not stimulated in any way. Frequently such incidents are combined with masturbation. The exhibitionists prefers to shock a viewer and get them to watch him orgasm. Again this didn't happen either. The man was in his kitchen and wasn't aroused and wasn't masturbating.

Exhibitionism, like most paraphilias, is often planned in advance. The expectation of the incident adds to the excitement for the exhibitionist. They will place themselves in such a manner as to "ambush" an unsuspecting victim (usually a man showing himself to a woman). So they will go someplace where victims are likely to be found. But could this man know that a woman was going to cut across his property that morning?

The evidence against him is very circumstantial indeed. And the incident doesn't seem to fit the pattern for exhibitionists. Of course, it is possible that the he did it on purpose, didn't find the experience arousing (but does it anyway for some other reason) and was willing to do it in a manner where he was sure to get caught. Most exhibitionists will not use their home as their base of operations for the "show" they put on. They don't want to get arrested, just be seen. So typically they will hang out away from their home or be sitting in a car so they can make a speedy get-away. To me everything about the case still says he was probably doing precisely what he said he was doing: making coffee in the morning, in his own kitchen, without getting dressed.

Once again the American pre-occupation with, and fear of, nudity is astounding. Should plain nudity alone be shocking? It was certainly common in the parks of Germany, in full public display of everyone. Beaches in France were the same way. I remember a hotel in Paris that overlooked a public pool where the women swam topless. The hotel staff said that no one, except Americans, found this offensive --- which is why they said Americans were the only ones who sat looking out their windows all the time.

Much of the law on this topic assumes that nudity per se is obscene. What a strange position to take over the human body. The truth is, most nude humans are totally uninteresting. A rare few have the bodies that attract attention and, sadly, they are the ones who tend to stay clothed the most. I've walked down the street and seen naked people through their windows. I neither slowed down, stopped, or stared. It was a glimpse and not particularly shocking or upsetting. Why should it be?

I certainly can understand the question of whether sexual activity in public is acceptable. But plain nudity is rather boring and I don't see why Americans have to make more of it than is warranted. You'd think these people thought we were born with diapers on. Outside of the Islamic world the United States is still pretty unique in this rather bizarre and contradictory view regarding nudity: it is obscene and disgusting yet people are fascinated by it. Well it is neither obscene nor disgusting and, to be quite honest, not that fascinating.

Photo: this rather boring photo is a satellite image of the Tiergarten park in Berlin. Those dots on the ground are naked people. Horrified?

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.

Atlanta's police chief tries to excuse illegal searches.

Earlier this week we reported on the police invasion of a gay bar. One problem, in reporting the case, was that the police couldn't seem to settle on a story as to what happened. Now they have And it's full of holes.

Police Chief Richard Pennington has done what all police chiefs do when their officers do something wrong. Defend them, pretend it was all fine, and hope it will go away. Obviously the next tactic is to "investigate" the officers before exonerating them.

According to Pennington police officers claimed to have witnessed illegal activity. The "illegal activity" they claim was to have seen patron's having sex with one another. The real problem is that NO ONE was charged with anything like that. Surely if undercover police officers witnessed such an incident, right before their eyes, they could conduct an arrest. But they didn't. Not a single patron was charged with any such thing.

Instead what the police did was send in nine undercover cops who were later joined by a dozen more uniformed officers along with a dog unit. The police showed up with three jail vans, clearly anticipating arrests of lots of people. The police allgeded that their investigation began because of claims that drugs were being dealt in the bar. Again, NO ONE was arrested on drug charges either.

When the police arrived, without any warrant, they forced all 62 patrons in the bar to lie on the floor while police illegally, and without permission, searched through each person's pockets looking for the drugs that they claimed were there. NONE were found. Then the identity of each person was recorded, even though they were not charged with anything or had been suspected of a crime, before they were released. People were detained for several hours though they had done nothing wrong.

The only charge the police could find was to claim that men dancing in underwear qualified as a "adult entertainment" which requires a license. What bullshit! A lawyer says that patrons "were not free to go. There was no suspicion any of them had committed a crime. This is unbelievable." So far ten of the people detained illegally have filed complaints against the police department.

Cop files bogus charges, lies and tasers Mom.

Deputy Tasers Mom In Minivan

A New York mother has filed a law suit against the Onodaga County Sheriff's department because of the actions of a violent deputy who pulled her over in traffic stop. Audra Harmon had just picked up her 15-year-old son from wrestling practice and was driving home. Also in the car was her five-year-old daughter. (Video of the incident is above, but read to the end for context first.)

Deputy Sean Andrews pulled Harmon over claiming that she had been using her cellphone while driving and said he was going to ticket her for that offense. Harmon was baffled as she had not been using a cell phone and told the officer she could show him the phone log with would indicate no calls had been made in the previous two hours.

Trapped by the evidence Deputy Andrews changed his story and now claimed that Harmon was being ticketed, not because of driving while using a cell phone, but because she was speeding. Harmon knew she was not speeding as well. So she asked to see the radar report that would show she was speeding. Andrews began walking toward his vehicle and Harmon assumed that he would then show her the evidence that she was speeding. So she got out of the car to follow him and take a look. In fact Andrews had no evidence that she was speeding. He claimed to have eye-balled her speed, that is determined it merely by looking at her. No radar was used.

Deputy Andrews went apoplectic and ordered her to get back in the car. He apparently had no intention of showing her any proof at all. She tried to ask for the evidence again and did get in the car. Her horrified son yelled to her to get back in, he apparently realized the officer was dangerous. As soon as she did get back in the car Deputy Andrews changed his mind again and demanded that she exit the vehicle instead. In this confusing situation Harmon is not sure what to do since she was ordered to stay in the vehicle and ordered to get out of the vehicle by the same cop who first claimed she was on a cell phone, and then pretended that wasn't the issue at all. Apparently Deputy Andrews has problems determining the facts and sticking to them.

Harmon's young daughter, witnessing this violent attack on her mother started screaming hysterically. She said: "Afterward, my son said she [the daughter] was really crying hysterically, wanting to know what happened to Mommy." Six police officers now arrived to help arrest this woman. An ambulance came and EMT technicians removed the taser barb from Harmon's chest and took her to the hospital. Deputy Andrews followed and issued four traffic tickets to the woman. Included was one for talking a cell phone (though she wasn't), speeding (based on his eye-ball evidence), resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

Police officers left the two children in the vehicle when they took Harmon to the hospital. They did not attempt to bring the children home, where Harmon's husband, who worked a night job, was sleeping. Instead they went to the house, woke Mr. Harmon and told him to go get his children. Harmon says that they children were left in the car, alone, for about 40 minutes.

Andrews' own police report "said Harmon refused his request to get back in her van, then refused to get out when he said she was under arrest." Get in, get out, make up your mind! Andrews yanks the woman out of her vehicle and tells her she is under arrest. Please note that she did nothing wrong to this point. She did not threaten a police officer. She asked for evidence of a traffic offense which the officer was refusing to give her.

Harmon is confused by the violent officer and his contradictory commands and his changing stories. She is also afraid of him—with good reason, police officers are violent and can not be trusted. Andrews pulls out his taser and tasers the women. The reason was that she started begging him not to do this to her in front of her children. Like wild animals do when they smell weakness the officer ratcheted up the attack by tasering her.

He claimed she resisted arrest. She did not. He had claimed she was on the cell phone. She was not. When she could prove that was a lie the Deputy changed his story. He then claimed she was speeding—his actually accusation was that she was going 50 mph in a 45 mph zone. He claimed she was obstructing traffic and filed charges. Note that she did not obstruct traffic. She stayed next to her car. However, the officer did grab her by the arm and flung her down into the street so that she was practically in the middle of the road. He obstructed traffic by flinging a non-violent women into the middle of the street.

All the made-up charges against Andrews were dropped when the evidence was investigated. But Deputy Andrews, while reassigned, is still a police officer and no action has been taken against him by Sheriff Kevin Walsh.

Walsh has his hands full with officers in his department. Two deputies were "discplined" because they were on guard duty in the jail when a 19-year-old committed suicide in his cell. They had both claimed on the records to have patrolled the area during the time period that they would have seen the dead youth. In other words, they said they had patrolled when they hadn't. Deputy Sheriff Christopher Pierce, another employee under Walsh, was recently arrested as well.

Deputy Pierce was on-line talking with a Deptuy Sheriff from Ulster County. Pierce did not, however, know he speaking to another police office. He thought his conversation was with a 14-year-old girl when he engaged in very explicit sexual talk. Unlike Andrews, Pierce at least had the decency to resign as a sheriff immediately following his arrest.

The unfortunate thing about the Harmon lawsuit is that the taxpayers, not Andrews, will pay the price. I still believe that when officers act like criminals and thugs, and they are sued, that they should be held personally liable for penalties along with the department that hires them. If an employee of Wal-Mart, in the course of work, attacks a customer Wal-Mart can be sued, as can the employee. And they will pay, not the taxpayers. A deputy who acts like a criminal should be treated like a criminal and held financially responsible for damages they inflict. The department, if sued, should pay penalties out their budget, not out of the taxpayer's funds. I can assure you that if violent cops threatened the budget the department, and the salaries of other cops, that this problem would be solved over night.

Camera catches cops framing woman for cop's error.

Here is an on-going case revealing how police officers act when one of them has done something wrong.



Let us be clear about the actual circumstances first. The officer in question, Joel Francisco, of the Hollywood, FL, police department, made a mistake. This is not a case of him beating someone up but it does illustrate the pervasive mentality among cops that they are obligated to cover-up for each other.

Francisco was on patrol. He was technically in violation of the law. He was following a car too closely. The woman in the car he was following stepped on the breaks and Office Francisco plowed into the backend of the other vehicle. Any other motorist, who had done the same thing, would be considered at fault.

Francisco radios out and other police officers drive to the scene to help. Torrensvilas had admitted that she had something to drink. That gave a plausible excuse to claim she was driving under the influence, though that is not apparent. In fact, the DA dropped these charges against Torrensvilas completely.

Instead of admitting the he made an error, Francisco, and the other officers, conspired to fake a scenario so that the officer would not be held responsible for his own negligence. Alexandra Torrensvilas, who was rear-ended in the accident, was charged with drunk driving. But that was not sufficient to clear Francisco, who would have been deemed guilty of following too closely anyway. Instead the officers got inventive, as the video tape here reveals.

Officers tried to pin the blame on Torresvilas in order to exonerate Francisco. In the official police report, concocted by the officers, they claimed that a “large cat” had been sitting in the woman’s lap. They claimed it suddenly leaped from the moving vehicle causing Torrensvilias to swerve into the lane directly in front of the police vehicle, thus causing the accident. This way Francisco was not in the same lane, and not following too closely. He was the victim of Torrensvilias and not at fault at all. The problem was that this did not happen. And, because the officers were not thinking very well, they forgot that the entire incident was being recorded on their dashboard camera. Their plotting to cover-up was recorded as well.

Here is what you will hear in the attached video, though you may wish to watch the whole thing. Officer Dewey Pressley says:

“There is no reason in your head whether you keep a safe distance or not, you would be anticipating someone to abruptly slam on the brakes unless you see a large object coming and especially—as far as I am concerned I am going to put words in his mouth. She went to accelerate, a cat jumped out, literally a cat jumped out the window at which time he thought it could have been a pedestrian, which distracted him, because he was concerned and that’s normal. And before he comes to a stop, boom. Hey.”

The other officer laugh at the suggestion and the conspiracy is under way. The main conspirator says: “Actually, I mean, I wouldn’t expect a cat to come out. I mean it could have been a fucking kid jump out of the fucking widow.” A second police officer chimes in: “That’s exactly what I thought, I didn’t know what the fuck was going on.”

Officer Pressley says: “Yes. Just let me space the whole thing out. I will do the narrative for you. I know how I am going to word this, the cat gets him off the hook.” He then realizes he needs to improve the story and says: “Well, is there any way—this is what I want to articulate, that she was in this lane and cut over to this lane.” He then tells another cop: “I will write the narrative out for you. I will tell you exactly how to word it so it can get him off the hook.” Pressley said: “I mean what’s the chances of hitting a fuckin drunk when a cat jumps out the window?”

Pressley says: “Well, I don’t want to make things up ever, because it’s wrong, but if I need to bend it a little to protect a cop I’m gonna.” There it is. That is the entire problem with American police officers in a nutshell. If they have to invent stories “to protect a cop” then they will do it. And they would have gotten away for it except for the tiny detail of the camera recording every lying detail as they invented it.

Pressley comforts Officer Francisco, assuring him that no will ever find out what really happened. They intentionally change the angle of certain photos, at the scene to make the facts appear to correspond with their invented story. Officer Pressley tells Sgt. Andrew Diaz , who is taking photos of the accident:

We’ll do a little Walt Disney to protect because it wouldn’t have mattered because she is drunk anyway. You see the angle of her car? You see where the collision is?

Is there any way—this is what I want to articulate that she was in this lane and cut over to this lane. …You don’t have to get any pictures I need or any whatever, because I don’t want Joe to get any (unclear). That’s not fair to him. She is freaking hammered anyway.

Like all the officers at the scene, five different officers, Diaz agrees to help doctor the evidence to fit the story Pressley invented.

In the grand scheme of things this is a relatively small incident. But it is indicative of the attitude that prevails among police officers. Officer Francisco did not intentionally back-end this woman. But he, and the other officers, did conspire to deny her her rights and to blame her for his error. They filed deceitful police reports to back up the claim. They would have gotten away with it but for the video which exposed their scheme to frame this woman for something a police officer accidentally did. Pressley revealed the way many police officers think, even those who are not engaged in criminal actions against the public. “If I need to bend it a little to protect a cop I’m gonna.” That is the mentality of lots of cops, and that is the reason bad cops thrive, they are protected and coddled by the so-called “good cops.”

"Shut up, faggot!": New motto for DC cops?

Pepin Tuma, 33, was walking with some friends, Luke Platzer and Dave Stetson in Washington, DC. They were discussing the police incident with Prof. Henry Louis Gates and Tuma said: “I hate the police!” This is a sentiment he shares with many Americans, especially those who actually read news reports about how cops behave.

Tuma’s comment was overheard by police officer J. Culp. Culp, like a mad dog, became enraged and charged at Tuma “pushed him against a transformer box” and shouted “shut up, faggot” at Tuma. Culp then carted Tuma off to jail.

Meanwhile another police officer approached Platzer and Stetson and told them that he had witnessed Tuma resisting arrest and wanted the two men to sign statements to that effect. Both men told the police officer they were standing there when the police attack took place and that Tuma never resisted arrest. Platzer said: “We thought he was trying to trick us into saying that there was physical resistance by Pepin to the arrest. That is not true.”

Tuma says he did not resist: “I said nothing at this time [of the arrest], except asking why I was being detained, whether I was being arrested, and my belief that it was not a crime to offer an opinion to my friends about the police.” Tuma should know, he’s an attorney. Unfortunately for the uniformed thugs, Platzer and Stetson are attorneys as well.

Police claim that Tuma was guilty of “disorderly conduct,” for saying something they didn’t like. The local ACLU says that DC cops routinely use this charge “as a ‘catchall means of making an arrest, without proper justification.” So, when a DC cops feels pissed off, which is frequently, they can just charge someone with disorderly conduct and arrest the person, causing great inconvenience, at best, or imposing thousands of dollars in legal expenses. It is a means by which they inflict harm the public merely to satisfy their own emotional needs to hurt someone.

Records show that five different citizens have filed complaints about Officer Culp and the way he behaves with just one section of the bureaucracy. Other complaints have been filed elsewhere, including one by Tuma. Police are refusing to comment on the incident.

And cops can't figure out why so many people hold them in contempt. If the shoe fits, officer, wear it with my compliments. Police officials say they are investigating. That is police jargon for "saying something to placate people now, waiting until it dies down, and then exonerating the officer involved."

An astounding sense of entitlement.

I have long felt that many American police officers do not see themselves as being bound by the same laws of decency and morality that bind the rest of us. They too often believe that they are above the law, that they are better than the rest of us, that they are entitled to obedience because of their lordly status.

Consider an unnamed police officer from Denver, Colorado as an example of this mental aberration that infects too many "law enforcement" officers. The officer, lets call him Officer Cartman so he has a name, went to a McDonald's in Aurora, Colorado. Officer Cartman was off-duty and outside his home jurisdiction.

Officer Cartman was with another off-duty Denver policeman and they drove up to the drive-thru window and placed an order.

Lord Cartman was angry when he got to the pick-up window because he thought his food was taking too long. He then decided to throw his "authoritah" around. He flashed his police bag and then pulled a gun on the clerk. He pointed the gun inside the drive-thru window in a threatening manner and then left without paying. Both officers are normally assigned to Denver International Airport -- something to remember if you ever fly through Denver.

Of course, Officer Cartman has not been arrrested nor charged. Imagine what would happen to you if you had pulled a stunt like this. Where do these thugs get their astounding sense of entitlement? Simple: they get it because they are treated by the political elite as something special, someone who truly is above the law and not governed in the same manner as the rest of us. They can get away with murder: literally.

Had you or I pulled a gun on a clerk at McDonalds merely because we were impatient there is a good chance that a violent, heavily armed SWAT team would be breaking down your doors shortly thereafter, murdering any dogs you may own, and ripping your house to pieces in the process. They may well taser you in the process, if they don't kill you because they "thought" your television remote control was a bazooka. And as you laid bleeding, or dead, on the floor in handcuffs they would high-five one another and laugh about the whole experience.

But when one of them breaks the law in a clear and unambiguous way the politicians bend over backwards to "investigate" and treat the office like a fragile child who will wilt at the slightest unpleasant word. And why do they do that? Again, it is not hard to understand. Cops are not there to keep the peace or protect the individual. They are fully "law enforcement" officers instead. Their job is to do the will of the political classes and protect the State from the people, not protect the people from each other. Since these dangerous gangs of officers are the armed guards of the politicians the political class always treats them gingerly and with kid gloves. They work for the politicians not for the people.

Unnecessarily violent cops caught on film

From what I can know the suspect in this case is not a nice person. He did lead police on a chase through the streets, after they tried to allegedly pull him over for a traffic violation. But what is clear is that the man, when he realized he could not escape, laid down on the ground and put his hands on the ground above his head. He had clearly surrendered. At the time he did that it was obvious that he was not armed. A police officer, apparently not realizing that a news helicopter was above then violent kicks the man in the head. Please be aware that such a kick to the head can kill.

A second police officer then comes on the scene and starts beating the man with a flashlight. In my experience police flashlights tend to be heavy metal, not cheap plastic items.

The man posed no threat to the officers at the point this happened. He was not resisting arrest at this time.

After assaulting this man two of cops 'high five" one another.

As I have repeatedly said, the police in the United States should be considered armed and dangerous. We have overwhelming evidence that they routinely engage in violent assaults on the flimsiest of pretences. Be assured that witnesses are not safe, that innocent bystanders are not safe, and you aren't even safe in your own home if a police officer knocks on your door. This is why I stay as far away from cops as possible. If you see a police officer your best response is to merely move as far away from them as possible. You should not speak to them, you should not try to help them. You should treat them as you would a rabid dog. Do nothing to stir them up but get as far away from them as you can.

I am fully aware that not all police officers act this way. I once posted a video here of a very tame, but wild hippo, that adopted a family and would come visit them, allowing them to pet her and fed her. But hippos kill more people in Africa than any other mammal, other than humans. It would be potentially deadly to assume any hippo is friendly. It is potentially dangerous to assume any police officer is safe. Protect your own life and avoid them.