The Captain's Journal

St. Louis County Settles For $750,000 In Case Where SWAT Team Shot Family Dog

BY Herschel Smith

5 years, 6 months ago

For the past week the jury had been listening to arguments in a civil rights case that pitted Angela Zorich of south St. Louis County against the St. Louis County Police Department and four of its officers. In April 2014, the county’s tactical operations unit busted down Zorich’s door at the request of problem properties unit Officer Robert Rinck because their gas had been turned off. In the raid, an officer shot and killed the family’s 4-year-old pit bull, Kiya.

The full week of trial was necessary, she said, to get the parties to where they ended up Monday morning, when St. Louis County offered to settle the case for $750,000 just before closing arguments were to begin.

National police shooting expert Jim Crosby, who testified for Zorich at the trial, said it is one of the largest settlements or awards in a dog-shooting case in the country.

At the trial, he testified that contrary to the police narrative that the dog had been charging at officers, it was more likely shot in its side or rear, at or near the spot where Kiya sat when officers broke into the house to execute a search warrant so they could examine the condition of the house. Zorich’s attorneys produced a photo — taken by animal control officers — late in the trial that they say had not been provided by the county when all photos of the scene had been requested.

But county attorney Priscilla Gunn said that the case had already had an effect on changing police policies.

“We’re glad it’s behind us,” she said of the lawsuit. “We’ve made changes since this incident.”

Attorney Jerry Dobson, who brought the lawsuit on behalf of Zorich, along with Nicole Matlock and Dan Kolde, said he hopes the county learns from what happened to Zorich. He believes the county needs to examine a policy that would use fully armored SWAT units to execute search warrants on what amounts to a crime of poverty.

“I think the settlement says they need to take a serious look at this practice, and hopefully change the policies to better protect the rights of its residents,” Dobson said.

In the trial, the Zorich family — particularly her three grown sons — were painted by the county as troublesome and violent, and anti-cop, in an attempt to justify the intensity of the armed raid.

So have you made changes to policy to call off those dumbass SWAT raids? Have you made changes to policy not to send cops out to harass people for not paying bills? Have you thrown the participating cops in jail?

Over what, you ask? Withholding evidence, animal cruelty, breaking and entering, assault with a deadly weapon, trespassing, damage to private property, and kidnapping. But no, instead of the cops paying for this, the taxpayer is left with the tab.

Over unpaid utility bills. Over unpaid utility bills.

4 Comments

Police

Mass Unlawful Detention By Indiana Police

BY Herschel Smith

5 years, 6 months ago

Via reader Ned, FreeThoughtProject:

The Free Thought Project has reported on multiple instances in which entire groups of people were detained and forced to show ID or submit to a search. However, during these questionable situations, police were able to reasonably articulate suspicion that a crime had been committed or was about to be committed. Over the weekend, at a popular Michigan City bar, there was no crime and no one had been suspected of committing a crime.

Despite these facts, more than a dozen officers raided this peaceful establishment in which patrons were enjoying their Saturday night. Police officers with the Michigan City Police Department blocked all the exits and the rights violating process began.

After police trapped them inside, every person in the bar was forced to line up and submit their identification to one of the many police officers who had setup laptops. Only after they submitted to the background checks were the patrons allowed to leave.

In the state of Indiana, a person only has to show their identification to law enforcement only if they have been stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation. Obviously, every single person inside this bar was not suspected of a crime, which made this process unconstitutional.

However, as the video shows, police didn’t accuse anyone of committing an infraction and detained them anyway.

What’s more, according to our sources at the bar that night, not a single arrest was even made.

As the video shows, the police officers running everyone’s IDs, couldn’t have cared about due process. Indeed, when Manna Carter, the woman who took the video, asks one of the officers why they are doing this, his response was, “because we can.”

As Carter questions them, the police attempted to justify this raid by claiming to be a part of some excise enforcement operation for the Alcohol & Tobacco Commission. However, the state of Indiana has an its own department for this known as the Indiana State Excise Police (ISEP).

More over, this was not some attempt to catch underage drinkers or a bar selling unlicensed booze. This was a sweeping raid and subsequent mass detainment of dozens of innocent people who were all forced to submit their information to police — probable cause be damned.

Even more damning is the fact that in an interview with TFTP, Carter said that no police officers from the ISEP were there that night and all the officers involved were from MCPD.

TFTP also reached out to the ISEP and the MCPD to inquire about which statute gave them the authority to carry out such rights-stomping exercise, however our calls and emails have yet to be returned.

The Supreme Court rule on “Terry Stops” means nothing according to the police. They are a law unto themselves.

Oh, and make note of the reply. “Because we can.” Not a single one of these officers cared about their oath to uphold the constitution. They may not be judged on this in time, but they certainly will in eternity.

12 Comments

Police

NYPD Cops Lie And Plant Evidence To Meet Quotas

BY Herschel Smith

5 years, 6 months ago

Via 357 Magnum, this report from New York.

A former NYPD narcotics detective snared in a corruption scandal testified it was common practice to fabricate drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas.

The bombshell testimony from Stephen Anderson is the first public account of the twisted culture behind the false arrests in the Brooklyn South and Queens narc squads, which led to the arrests of eight cops and a massive shakeup.

Anderson, testifying under a cooperation agreement with prosecutors, was busted for planting cocaine, a practice known as “flaking,” on four men in a Queens bar in 2008 to help out fellow cop Henry Tavarez, whose buy-and-bust activity had been low.

“Tavarez was … was worried about getting sent back [to patrol] and, you know, the supervisors getting on his case,” he recounted at the corruption trial of Brooklyn South narcotics Detective Jason Arbeeny.

“Did you observe with some frequency this … practice which is taking someone who was seemingly not guilty of a crime and laying the drugs on them?” Justice Gustin Reichbach asked Anderson.

“Yes, multiple times,” he replied.

The judge pressed Anderson on whether he ever gave a thought to the damage he was inflicting on the innocent.

“It was something I was seeing a lot of, whether it was from supervisors or undercovers and even investigators,” he said.

“It’s almost like you have no emotion with it, that they attach the bodies to it, they’re going to be out of jail tomorrow anyway; nothing is going to happen to them anyway.”

Nah. No record, no night in jail, no inability to get jobs, nothing. Nothing is going to happen to them anyway. Nothing.

This is what happens when you take corrupt men and put them in charge of prosecuting an unnecessary and immoral war on the American people.

Quotas. Hardening of the heart to the plight of the victims. Lying. Cheating. Falsification of documents. Violation of your oath. Harming other men for the sake of your own advancement.

6 Comments

Police

New Jersey Police Lieutenant Arrested For Drunk Driving

BY Herschel Smith

5 years, 6 months ago

There are a lot of pregnant quotes in this video worth parsing: “I would love to know who called” … “You can find that out sir, you know you can find that out” … “We don’t want to be put in this position” … “Some way to avoid more headaches …”

6 Comments

Police

Steyr Arms: Training The Next Lon Horiuchi

BY Herschel Smith

5 years, 6 months ago

Tactical Life.

Steyr Arms recently announced a new training program exclusively for law enforcement at the Steyr Academy at the CMP Range in Talladega, Alabama. Steyr will offer its long-range training course to designated marksmen for law enforcement agencies. Above all, it’s offering this premium training course absolutely free of charge.

The long-range course comprises two days of instruction, taught by Steyr’s Training Academy Director Eduardo Abril de Fontcuberta. A long-range shooting world champion, Fontcuberta brings more than 25 years experience. Further, he served as both a military and police sniper instructor and armorer. He is also considered one of the world’s leaders in extreme long-range shooting, according to Steyr Arms. Now Fontcuberta dedicates his time to teaching a no-nonsense course. It takes place in a personal training environment that provides his students with the knowledge necessary to become a super-accurate, long-distance shooter in any condition, according to Steyr.

“At Steyr Arms, we are proud to support law enforcement,” said Scott O’Brien, president and CEO. “We are using our training academy to show our respect for police officers across the country who put their lives at risk every day to keep us safe. This is our way of saying thank you for everything you do.”

The term “designated marksman” is fairly unique to the U.S. Marine Corps. The Army doesn’t employ that expression because it has no place in Army small unit doctrine. They have snipers, but so does the USMC (“Scout Snipers”). The training undertaken by DMs in the USMC includes most or all of the classroom and range training that the Scout Snipers go through, just short of the actual final Scout Sniper concealment, ingress, egress qualifications. I know this because my son was a DM. If police in America use the expression DM, they stole it from the military.

Exactly what Steyr thinks of the militarization of police in America they don’t say. Exactly why police in the U.S. need such a thing as a DM Steyr doesn’t say. Nor do they appear to question it, or question the history of use of such people in policing in America. But if this is a raw attempt at a sales pitch to LEOs, it might be interesting to know what the Steyr management thinks of a future in which the only people who can legally take the course are LEOs, the same [and only] ones who can purchase Steyr products.

It won’t work. There won’t be enough LEO money to go around after firearms are restricted. Not even the companies left in business will be financially healthy. Assuming, of course, all of that comes to pass. And it might also be interesting to know what Steyr management thinks when the Fraternal Order of Police support such bans in America and Steyr goes bankrupt because there aren’t enough people to buy their products. “The lion will eat me last” has never been a wise strategy.

Steyr may also want to ponder asking Mr. Eduardo Abril de Fontcuberta how he feels about training in America and the [current] freedom to do so given the gun control that exists in his home country of Spain. It seems a bit hypocritical to travel to America to conduct training while living in a country that prohibits most people from even owning weapons.

I would expect Steyr to see pushback on this, but if they haven’t yet, they should.

23 Comments

Police Tags: Steyr Arms —

Ninth Circuit: There’s Nothing Inherently Suspicious About Running From The Police Or Carrying A Gun

BY Herschel Smith

5 years, 6 months ago

TechDirt:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just handed down a refresher [PDF] on a few legal issues, most notably what is or isn’t “reasonable” when it comes to suspicion. Police officers thought an anonymous tip about a man carrying a gun and someone running away from them created enough suspicion to chase down Daniel Brown, stop him at gunpoint, and search him for contraband.

Contraband was found, leading to Brown’s motion to suppress. The lower court said this combination — an anonymous report of a gun and Brown’s decision to run when he saw the police cruiser — was reasonable enough. Not so, says the Ninth Circuit, pointing out the obvious fact that a person carrying a gun can’t be inherently suspicious in a state where carrying a gun in public is permitted.

In Washington State, it is presumptively lawful to carry a gun. It is true that carrying a concealed pistol without a license is a misdemeanor offense in Washington. See RCW §§ 9.41.050(1)(a) (“[A] person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol . . . .”), 9.41.810 (explaining that any violation of the subchapter is a misdemeanor “except as otherwise provided”). However, the failure to carry the license is simply a civil infraction.

There was no reason for officers to assume Brown’s gun was unlicensed. Since carrying a gun in Washington is “presumptively legal,” the officers would have needed more info than they had to perform a stop to just to ask Brown for his carry license. The anonymous tip officers received said only that a YWCA resident had approached the desk and said they’d seen a man with a gun. No further information was given by the tipster.

Faced with the weakness of the tip and the presumptive legality of gun ownership, the police then argued Brown might have been illegally “displaying” his gun to “cause alarm.” But the court denies this argument — first raised on appeal — as being no better than assuming Brown’s mere gun possession was enough to justify a stop.

Faced with this reality, the government now argues that the officers suspected that the manner in which Brown was carrying his gun was unlawful: it is “unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm . . . in a manner, under circumstances, . . . that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.” RCW § 9.41.270. Never mind that nothing in the record could support such a finding. No evidence shows that the resident was alarmed at the time she reported seeing the gun. There is no report that she yelled, screamed, ran, was upset, or otherwise acted as though she was distressed. Instead, the 911 call reported only that the resident “walked in” and stated “that guy has a gun.”

Finally, the government argued that Brown’s decision to flee when he saw police officers was inherently suspicious. Again, the court says this is wrong. While fleeing officers can be suggestive of wrongdoing, it is only one factor and it’s one heavily influenced by the deteriorated relationships many law enforcement agencies have with the communities they serve.

[ … ]

The public isn’t obligated to stop just because an officer says, “Stop.” … If law enforcement doesn’t like the way this decision breaks, it really can’t blame anyone else for the public’s reaction to the unexpected presence of officers.

Good for them, and I’m extremely surprised to see this come from the Ninth Circuit. LEOS have to be told, and told, and told again the same thing, and they never learn, or just don’t want to. The problem is, of course, that there are no repercussions from ignoring the court’s opinion because the courts and LEOs are all on the same side. They are one and the same, even if one is technically the executive and the other technically the judiciary.

This is very similar to a decision by the Fourth Circuit concerning Mr. Nathanial Black.

Nathaniel Black was part of a group of men in Charlotte, North Carolina who local police officers suspected might be engaged in criminal activity. In particular, Officers suspected that after seeing one of the men openly carrying a firearm – which was legal in North Carolina – that there was most likely another firearm present. When police began frisking the men one by one, Mr. Black wished to leave, but was told he was not free to leave. Officers chased Mr. Black and discovered that he possessed a firearm; it was later discovered that he was a previously convicted felon. Mr. Black was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Before the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Mr. Black moved to suppress the evidence against him. His suppression motion was denied, he entered a guilty plea preserving a right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion, and he was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, determined that the officers had improperly seized Mr. Black, suppressed the evidence against him, and vacated his sentence.

Because open carry is legal in North Carolina. See, carrying a weapon isn’t a valid reason to stop people, innocent or not. Black was in fact a felon in possession of a firearm and the Fourth Circuit let him go and vacated his sentence, as they should have. Innocence or guilt has nothing whatsoever to do with anything concerning rights, the behavior of the police, and precedent.

But LEOs don’t learn the law these days, so sadly, I know more about it than most cops do. And you do too.

10 Comments

Gun Control,Police

Phoenix Police: “I’m Going To Put A Cap In Your Ass … I’m Going To Shoot You In Your F****** Face”

BY Herschel Smith

5 years, 7 months ago

The Washington Post:

On May 29, Dravon Ames and his fiancee, Iesha Harper, said they went on a family outing with their two children, London, 1, and Island, 4. Without their knowledge, Island took a doll from a Family Dollar Store, according to a notice of claim dated Wednesday that was filed by former Arizona attorney general Thomas Horne, who is representing Ames and Harper.

A police patrol unit followed the couple’s car. Once the family members entered their babysitter’s apartment complex, an officer approached the vehicle with his gun drawn and yanked open the front door, the claim said.

Despite department rules that require police to wear body cameras, the Phoenix officers were not wearing them, the claim said. But passersby recorded the encounter. The police released one video this week, but there are others online.

“I’m going to put a cap in your a–,” one officer said to Ames as a second policeman, whose weapon was also drawn and pointed at Ames, walked up to the car, the video shows. “I’m going to shoot you in your f—ing face.”

Both statements, Horne wrote in the claim, were made in front of the couple’s children, who were in the rear of the vehicle.

The first officer — who has not yet been named by the department — pulled Ames, 22, from the car, pushed his head to the pavement, handcuffed him and yelled that Ames better follow orders, according to the claim. The officer threw Ames against the car, ordered him to spread his legs and “kicked him in the right leg so hard that the father collapsed.” Then, the officer dragged him upright and punched him in the back, the claim said.

Once Ames was handcuffed and inside the patrol car, the officers focused their attention on Harper and the children, according to the claim.

The two officers pointed their weapons at the visibly pregnant 24-year-old Harper and her children, the video shows and the claim stated.

“The first officer grabbed the mother and the baby around both of their necks, and tried to take the baby out of the mother’s hand,” the claim alleged. “He told her to put the baby on the ground, which she was unwilling to do because the baby could not walk, and the ground consisted of hot pavement.”

The officer tried to rip Harper’s youngest child from her arms, the claim stated. Eventually he threw Harper, who had handed the children to a bystander, into the police car face first and then handcuffed her.

“I could have shot you in front of your f—ing kids,” he said, according to the claim.

“The notice of claim alleged that the police officers “committed battery, unlawful imprisonment, false arrest, infliction of emotional distress, and violation of civil rights under the fifth and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution.” Horne told The Washington Post that the city has 60 days to respond before he files the lawsuit.”

I think that’s a short list, which could have included assault with a deadly weapon, trespassing, stalking and harassment, unlawful threats, etc., etc.

The pathetic Phoenix mayor, Kate Gallego, apologized.

“I am deeply sorry for what this family went through, and I apologize to our community,” Gallego said on Twitter Saturday evening. “This is not who we are, and I refuse to allow this type of behavior to go unchallenged.”

Hey Kate, you’re a liar. The ranks of cops everywhere are filled with sociopaths who think they’re on a mission from Stalin, and you’re not going to do a damn thing about it. “Unchallenged.” What does that even mean?

She’s acting like this is some sort of family squabble where one errant child needs to be corrected for fighting with another child.

Here’s a news flash for you Kate. This has to do with criminal activity. These cops are sociopathic criminals. They don’t just need to lose their jobs – they need to be imprisoned for what they did. No financial remuneration will suffice, because that means taxpayers are on the hook. No, there is retribution, and without it, you’re just another cog in the machine.

13 Comments

Police Tags: Phoenix Police Department —

Art Acevedo Is At His Gun Control Ways Yet Again

BY Herschel Smith

5 years, 7 months ago

Breitbart:

His comments are in reference to legislation which would allow Texans to carry a handgun open or concealed without a permit for one week after a natural disaster is declared in the state. The Dallas Morning News reports that the legislation was passed by state lawmakers and is now sitting on Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) desk.

Texas already allows the carry of long guns without a permit. This means a Texas resident not barred from gun possession can legally carry an a lever action rifle, an AR-15, a pump shotgun, etc., without any permit in places where firearms are no prohibited. But handgun owners are required to have a permit for open or concealed carry. State Rep. Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) is pushing for the week-long, post-natural disaster carry period for handguns so Texans under duress can carry a gun for protection, regardless of whether they have a permit.

Acevedo said, “We experienced one of the worst disasters in Texas history during Harvey. The World watched as we all came together. This bill wasn’t needed then & isn’t needed now. This will embolden 20,000+ gang members & will not help LE. Let’s hope it isn’t signed.”

“The sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. There’ll be blood running in the streets. Oh the humanity.”

He Art, why don’t you go shut down those 20,000+ gang members rather than spending your time on failed SWAT raids on innocent people?

6 Comments

Gun Control,Police Tags: Art Acevedo, Texas Gun Laws —

Fraternal Order of Police President Chuck Canterbury Picked To Head ATF

BY Herschel Smith

5 years, 7 months ago

National Association for Gun Rights.

Late on Friday afternoon the White House released an official statement that Chuck Canterbury, Jr. was nominated to become the next ATF Director.

Unfortunately, Canterbury has a long history of publicly supporting and endorsing anti-gun policies, anti-gun Supreme Court nominees, and anti-gun high ranking government officials.

In his official capacity as President of the National Fraternal Order of Police, Canterbury has:

*** Supported radical anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

*** Supported former Attorney General Eric Holder – Obama’s head honcho who ran the deadly Fast and Furious gun running program.

*** Supported expanding the federal government’s gun registration schemes.

Even more troubling, Canterbury’s FOP is currently lobbying AGAINST Constitutional Carry, even though the vast majority of law enforcement officers support the right to carry.

I find this release to be short on facts, or at least, references to those facts along with analysis of them. So let’s do a little digging.

From The Daily Caller.

President Donald Trump announced Friday plans to nominate Fraternal Order of Police President Chuck Canterbury to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Canterbury has been Fraternity Order of Police (FOP) president for 16 years, having previously spent 26 years in the Horry County, South Carolina, Police Department’s patrol, criminal and training divisions, according to the White House statement.

“Chuck is one of the most honorable people I’ve ever worked with and if he is selected, I can’t think of a finer person to take the position,” said Jonathan Thompson, executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association. Thompson made the remarks to POLITICO in Nov. 2018, when Canterbury’s name was first floated for the position.

[ … ]

Canterbury has been vocal in his Second Amendment support, testifying July 2009 before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who had worked closely with police as a Manhattan prosecutor early in her career:

“I want no mistake to be made,” Canterbury testified. “I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Second Amendment. In fact, if I thought that Judge Sotomayor’s presence on the court posed a threat to my Second Amendment right, I would not be supporting her here today.”

Dave Kopel explains why support for Sotomayor was problematic.

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the Supreme Court opinions in McDonald v. Chicago was the dissenters’ assault on District of Columbia v. Heller. Not only did Justice Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment into a practical nullity. Ominously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the Breyer dissent – contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.

So was support for Sotomayor just a brain seizure or an indication of a deeper problem? First, Canterbury wants local and state police to know all about NICS denials. Doubtless such support for this law is couched in terms of learning about felons trying to purchase weapons, but swept into the mix are veterans who didn’t know they were on the denial list for NICS due to reporting conducted by the DoD for things like PTSD.

More troublesome still is this letter from Canterbury to Patrick Leahy.

Dear Mr. Chairman,

I am writing on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police, the oldest and largest law enforcement organization in the United States, to strongly recommend that several measures, all absolutely critical elements of addressing gun violence, be included in any legislation moving forward as a result of your deliberations.
These measures are:

•Expansion of background checks on firearm purchasers;
• Reinvigoration of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATP) to ensure that it has the tools and resources necessary to its mission;
• Improved law enforcement access to mental health records in the context of firearms acquisition;
• Funding to put more State and local law enforcement officers on the street.

[ … ]

We believe the most logical starting point to address gun violence is the expansion of the background check system. Incomplete or absent background checks create a gaping hole in the wall between firearms and criminals. Loopholes in the background check system give criminals unprecedented opportunity to access firearms. This problem must be remedied quickly. An expanded and improved background check system will provide the first level of defense against criminals arming themselves.

[ … ]

Specifically, the confirmation ofB. Todd Jones must occur as quickly as possible. As Acting Director at ATP, Mr. Jones has provided the agency the leadership and vision which has been lacking in recent years. Mr. Jones has the requisite experience pursuing tough firearms and weapons cases and has demonstrated the ability to reset ATP after recent tumultuous investigations.

[ … ]

Along with comprehensive background checks, better access to mental health records is critical to keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Without access to these records, law enforcement, at all levels of government, is handicapped which gives the criminal element the advantage.

So with this single letter, we’ve learned that Canterbury is in favor of [a] universal background checks, [b] the nomination of B. Todd Jones as director of the ATF, and [c] law enforcement access to medical records.

The surest sign of a collectivist and statist is support for universal background checks, which is the denial of free trade, the infringement of the RKBA and in general the suppression of liberty.

We all know the record that B. Todd Jones left at the ATF, and while it’s easy to place this last one in the category of “Fix-NICS,” it isn’t exactly that. Remember, Canterbury wrote this while president of the fraternal order of police. He’s arguing for access to medical records by all local and state police, all justified and codified at the federal level. You can jettison the medical privacy laws, according to Canterbury. He wants to see your records.

But just to make it clear, Canterbury says, “I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Second Amendment.” His record proves otherwise. It would be far too simple merely to speak out against Canterbury. I would expect nothing less from the president of the fraternal order of police.

The deeper problem is with Trump himself for nominating Canterbury. First Trump gave us the bump stock ban. Then he gave us support for red flag laws, I’m certain lending credibility to and giving cover for Lindsey Graham’s efforts to nationalize funding for so-called “extreme risk protection orders.”

Now he is giving us a gun controller for head of the ATF. Don’t be surprised. From the very beginning Trump was and always will be a Northeastern progressive. He will never be anything other than what he is. He will not change. He cannot change.

He wouldn’t even understand why anyone would object to Canterbury’s nomination, in fact. His distance from the common man wouldn’t even allow him to understand the very language of proponents of the RKBA. We were brought up in a different cultural milieu, we have a different world and life view, we speak different languages. It isn’t even possible to translate or interpret the languages or bridge the gap between us, we are so different. If I were to speak to Trump about this, I may as well be speaking Mandarin.

I do not think it would be possible for Trump to understand why we would object to Canterbury, but mind you, we will likely see him sitting in front of Congress as an “expert” testifying about why America needs universal background checks and access to all medical records. He’s done it as president of the fraternal order of police, and there is no reason to think he’s changed. Trump has merely given him more power.

14 Comments

BATFE,Gun Control,Police Tags: Chuck Canterbury —

Detroit Will Pay Out $60,000 To Woman Whose Dogs Were Shot On A Marijuana Raid

BY Herschel Smith

5 years, 8 months ago

Reason:

The City of Detroit will pay out $60,000 to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit by a woman who says police wantonly shot and killed her three dogs during a marijuana raid three years ago.

The plaintiff, Nikita Smith, claimed in a 2016 lawsuit that officers from Detroit’s Major Violators Unit acted as a “dog death squad” when they executed a narcotics search warrant on her house for a suspected marijuana offense, shooting three of her pit bulls, including one that was behind a closed bathroom door. Extremely graphic photos entered into evidence in the case show bullet holes riddling the outside of the door and the dog dead inside the bathroom.

I covered this but the photos are so gruesome, offensive and disgusting that I don’t even want to link my piece.

Smith was arrested for marijuana possession, but the charges were later dropped when officers failed to appear in court.

The settlement is the latest in a string of costly payouts for Detroit due to dog shootings during drug raids. It also set new precedent in Fourth Amendment law. Detroit tried to argue that, since Smith’s dogs were unlicensed, in violation of Detroit’s municipal code, she had no legitimate property interest in them under the Fourth Amendment. The court rejected this argument.

Smith’s attorney, Chris Olson, calls the decision “a milestone in police-dog shooting cases that continue to plague the United States.

“The decision was significant because it denies police a ‘get out of jail free card’ if the deceased dog is later discovered to have been unlicensed,” he continues. “The decision is especially significant because the vast majority of dogs are unlicensed. The upshot is that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from shooting dogs where the shooting is more intrusive than necessary, and citizens do not have to pay a dog license fee to enjoy their Fourth Amendment rights.”

A 2016 Reason investigation found that the department’s Major Violators Unit, which conducts drug raids across the city, has a nasty habit of leaving dead dogs in its wake and generating civil rights lawsuits. A follow-up investigation found that Detroit police shot 54 dogs in 2017, twice as many as Chicago.

Last year, Detroit paid $225,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by Kenneth Savage and Ashley Franklin, who claimed Detroit police officers shot their three dogs while the animals were enclosed behind an 8-foot-tall fence—all so the officers could confiscate several potted marijuana plants in the backyard.

In 2015, the city approved a $100,000 settlement to a man after police shot his dog while it was securely chained to a fence.

One officer involved in the Smith raid has shot 80 dogs over the course of his career, according to “destruction of animal” reports filed by Detroit police officers in 2017 and obtained by Reason. Two other officers involved in the Smith raid testified in depositions that they had shot “fewer than 20” and “at least 19” dogs over the course of their careers.

Bah. What’s a few thousand here and there when the tax-payers have to foot the bill? Now if they were to have charged them with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to do harm, animal cruelty and trespassing, and thrown them in prison, we may be getting somewhere.

Here’s another note for you. I don’t believe in your “war on drugs.” Not even a little bit. I consider your raids to be criminal home invasion, and I don’t consider you to be “heroes of the community” when you do things like that.

9 Comments

Police

Archive for the 'Police' Category