Police state: the walls are closing in

[Jason Harvestdancer]

She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.

I thought about sharing this earlier, but now Loren needs to see it.

Cops are thugs, bullies, criminals with badges. Talk to a cop at your own risk. The only thing that America is learning is that this is happening to white people too, not just minorities.

Unbanked minorities know the risk of carrying home your pay.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Suspended Pemberton Township officer pleads guilty to child endangerment

I can't find one without a subscription wall right now.

A suspended Pemberton Township police officer accused of sexually assaulting a minor pleaded guilty Monday to a lesser charge in exchange for a probationary sentence and forfeiture of his law enforcement career.

Jason Kreig, 33, admitted that he gave a statement to authorities that he was “horsing around” with the 11-year-old victim on her bed in her bedroom, got hurt, told her he was going to kiss her, and instead bit her lip, during a hearing at the Burlington County Courthouse in Mount Holly.

...

Unhappy with the plea deal, the 11-year-old victim was sobbing uncontrollably as she left the courtroom.

Anyone else would have been thrown in jail with the key destroyed. "Blue Privilege" at its finest. He'll probably soon get a job with another department as a "Gypsy Cop".

Anyone else would have been put on a sex offender watchlist, he loses his job.

 

[SimpleDon]

Woman Charged With Hate Crime for Anti-NYPD Graffitti

If I were to call you a bully, it would be protected speech. If I were to spraypaint that same sentiment on public property, it would be vandalism. And if I were to turn that sentiment toward the New York Police Department (NYPD)? Apparently, it would be a hate crime. That's the charge leveled against Rosella Best, a 36-year-old Brooklyn woman who spraypainted messages such as "NYPD pick on the harmless" around Williamsburg.

Other messages, which Best spraypainted on cop cars and one elementary-school wall, included "Nazis=NYPD"; "NYPD pick on the innocent"; and (my personal favorite) "a wrongful arrest is a crime."

Our graffiti justice warrior was caught on camera and arrested. But instead of charging her with "defacement of property" or merely "criminal mischief," the NYPD booked her on the more severe charge of criminal mischeif as a hate crime, plus aggravated harassment.

I would say this seems like good evidence that the NYPD does, indeed, "pick on the harmless"—but I don't need a federal hate crime task force coming after me. You just keep doing you, NYPD.

Yes, our brave and fearless defenders of public order are not only terrified of cameras, not only terrified of people not automatically adopting an attitude of subservience, but now want "being a cop" to be a special protected class along with race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Because just as a person has no choice about their race, gender, and sexual orientation, one is apparently born a cop and has no say in the matter.

How noble of them.

By the way, I'm not defending graffiti. I shouldn't have to point that out, but around here I do have to point that out.

Yes, you do, unfortunately.

The US has rather an odd relationship with its own police. We have the largest number of police per capita of any country in the world that is not an oil rich potentate, twice the number of the next largest police state, which not too surprisingly is Germany.

Not only do we live in the world's largest police state, we also incarcerate more of our citizens than any other country.

What prevents us from feeling the oppression of living in the world's largest police state, is the ineptitude and inefficiency of our police. Unlike most countries in the world most of our police are the responsibility of local government, not the national government. There are more than 17,000 police agencies in the US, according to Google. With from 1 to more than 30,000 officers in them.

The inter jurisdictional conflicts are a nightmare of course. The administrative overhead is tremendous, 17,000 command structures, 17,000 ways of accomplishing the exact same thing. So many different standards of training. The highest concentration of well trained, experienced police officers in the wealthy suburbs were they aren't needed, the lowest concentration of largely inexperienced officers in the inner cities.

It is as if we want a large number of police who can't do their jobs very well. We avoid a police state by having inefficient, inept police.

And we tolerate the large number of people who are incarcerated because they are primarily minorities. We have found a new, guilt free way of suppressing minorities, we throw them in prison. When they get out they can't vote and they can't get a decent job, circa 1950, again. The war on drugs is the new Jim Crow.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Settling Case, S.&P. Backs Off Claims of U.S. ‘Retaliation’

Standard & Poor's, the giant credit rating agency accused of inflating the subprime mortgage bubble, had long been convinced that a Justice Department lawsuit lacked merit. So convinced, in fact, that it portrayed the lawsuit as an act of 'retaliation' for its decision to cut the credit rating of the United States in the summer of 2011. Now that S.&P. is poised to settle that case, as well as lawsuits from 19 state attorneys general across the country, the rating agency is walking back that claim. As part of a $1.37 billion settlement deal expected this week, S.&P. has agreed to acknowledge that it never found evidence supporting its accusations of retaliation, people briefed on the matter said. The Justice Department, which long scoffed at S.&P.'s claims, had emphasized the retraction as a sticking point in the settlement talks.

Should be titled: S&P agrees to pay $1.37 billion extortion demand, pretend it’s not being extorted.

This is an extraordinary case, really. Alone among all the major financial institutions, the S&P is being held to account for their participation in the 2008 meltdown. Also alone among all the major financial institutions, the S&P downgraded the credit rating of the US. The S&P said "this suit is retaliation for us downgrading the credit rating."

And a key point in the settlement deal, one the government insisted on, would not budge on, is that S&P retracted their claim of retaliation.

That's why this is a Police State issue. S&P was forced to say "no, your action wasn't retaliation." Think about that. All the rest of it is financial news, but that one item is Police State news. "When we settle with you, you must admit we are right. It's not enough that you are paying a penalty, you must say you deserved the penalty and that we were right to apply it."

 

[ksen]

I can't really give a shit about this one. As far as I'm concerned the whole lot of credit rating agencies should be out of business with the executives in jail and never allowed to be in the financial sector again.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You find nothing worrying about a government that includes "you must say we are right and you are wrong" as part of any conviction or settlement? This has implications way beyond S&P. The S&P is merely a vehicle by which the real story, the coerced agreement, is presented.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Settling Case, S.&P. Backs Off Claims of U.S. ‘Retaliation’

Standard & Poor's, the giant credit rating agency accused of inflating the subprime mortgage bubble, had long been convinced that a Justice Department lawsuit lacked merit. So convinced, in fact, that it portrayed the lawsuit as an act of 'retaliation' for its decision to cut the credit rating of the United States in the summer of 2011. Now that S.&P. is poised to settle that case, as well as lawsuits from 19 state attorneys general across the country, the rating agency is walking back that claim. As part of a $1.37 billion settlement deal expected this week, S.&P. has agreed to acknowledge that it never found evidence supporting its accusations of retaliation, people briefed on the matter said. The Justice Department, which long scoffed at S.&P.'s claims, had emphasized the retraction as a sticking point in the settlement talks.

Should be titled: S&P agrees to pay $1.37 billion extortion demand, pretend it’s not being extorted.

Umm... you do remember 2008 right? One of the key enablers of that crash was the credit ratings companies. And their $1.37 billion settlement definitely made right the trillions in losses from the '08 crash, the millions of people that lost their jobs? Extortion? S&P seems to be getting off easy here.

This is an extraordinary case, really. Alone among all the major financial institutions, the S&P is being held to account for their participation in the 2008 meltdown. Also alone among all the major financial institutions, the S&P downgraded the credit rating of the US. The S&P said "this suit is retaliation for us downgrading the credit rating."

And a key point in the settlement deal, one the government insisted on, would not budge on, is that S&P retracted their claim of retaliation.

That's why this is a Police State issue. S&P was forced to say "no, your action wasn't retaliation." Think about that. All the rest of it is financial news, but that one item is Police State news. "When we settle with you, you must admit we are right. It's not enough that you are paying a penalty, you must say you deserved the penalty and that we were right to apply it."

It is ridiculous that it has taken this long to get here. And it is ridiculous if similar suits are not pending with the other ratings agencies.

 

[Togo]

You find nothing worrying about a government that includes "you must say we are right and you are wrong" as part of any conviction or settlement?

I do, but no more worrying than private companies doing the same thing. Settling assocaited libels is generally part of any civil suit. Why should this be different?

 

[ksen]

You find nothing worrying about a government that includes "you must say we are right and you are wrong" as part of any conviction or settlement? This has implications way beyond S&P. The S&P is merely a vehicle by which the real story, the coerced agreement, is presented.

You're overstating what happened. S&P didn't have to admit the government was right. They had to acknowledge they didn't have any evidence that the US lawsuit was retaliatory in nature. The article you posted said S&P threw out 19 defenses to see what would stick. They thought the "retaliation" defense was their best bet. The article also says that Moody's is probably next up.

Instead of being upset about that we ought to be upset that another company complicit in the financial meltdown has escaped any serious penalties and is still allowed to carry on business as usual.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, I still think there's a police state story here.

Supposing I am in traffic court for an illegal pass. I say to the judge "The cop got the wrong guy. I swear it wasn't me." The judge fails to buy my defense, and finds me guilty. He only finds me guilty, he doesn't say "and you must admit he had the right guy" as part of the sentencing.

Now many cases involving large firms involve settlements. Often they settle out of court, sometimes the settle in court. Very rarely does the firm settling have to admit to wrongdoing. In fact, often they settle without admitting any fault. Sometimes they do admit fault in the settlement though. But never are they asked to repudiate a defense they made during the case while making the settlement. The defense simply doesn't work and the judge says "Nope, not buying it." Except in this case.

The settlement included "You will repudiate that particular defense."

That is news. Even though it is the S&P, which is looked down on for their part in the financial crisis, that is still news.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, I still think there's a police state story here.

Supposing I am in traffic court for an illegal pass. I say to the judge "The cop got the wrong guy. I swear it wasn't me." The judge fails to buy my defense, and finds me guilty. He only finds me guilty, he doesn't say "and you must admit he had the right guy" as part of the sentencing.

This isn't even close, though. S&P isn't just saying they weren't guilty, they were saying 'the only reason cop pulled me over is because he's a (racist)(Sexist)(whatever applies--ist) bastard.'

Then if the judge finds you guilty, finds no evidence of bigotry on the cop's part, and then forces you to recant your accusation, it would be comparable.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, I still think there's a police state story here.

Supposing I am in traffic court for an illegal pass. I say to the judge "The cop got the wrong guy. I swear it wasn't me." The judge fails to buy my defense, and finds me guilty. He only finds me guilty, he doesn't say "and you must admit he had the right guy" as part of the sentencing.

Now many cases involving large firms involve settlements. Often they settle out of court, sometimes the settle in court. Very rarely does the firm settling have to admit to wrongdoing. In fact, often they settle without admitting any fault. Sometimes they do admit fault in the settlement though. But never are they asked to repudiate a defense they made during the case while making the settlement. The defense simply doesn't work and the judge says "Nope, not buying it." Except in this case.

The settlement included "You will repudiate that particular defense."

That is news. Even though it is the S&P, which is looked down on for their part in the financial crisis, that is still news.

If S&P feels so wronged about having to admit that they had no evidence that this was retaliation, all they had to do was not accept the settlement, and continue with the legal proceeding.

Also, I don't think you know what the term "police state" actually means.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, I still think there's a police state story here.

Supposing I am in traffic court for an illegal pass. I say to the judge "The cop got the wrong guy. I swear it wasn't me." The judge fails to buy my defense, and finds me guilty. He only finds me guilty, he doesn't say "and you must admit he had the right guy" as part of the sentencing.

This isn't even close, though. S&P isn't just saying they weren't guilty, they were saying 'the only reason cop pulled me over is because he's a (racist)(Sexist)(whatever applies--ist) bastard.'

Then if the judge finds you guilty, finds no evidence of bigotry on the cop's part, and then forces you to recant your accusation, it would be comparable.

When, in traffic court, a person says "The only reason the cop pulled me over is because he's racist" and the judge doesn't buy it, the judge simply says "guilty, pay your fine", not "guilty, pay your fine, and say that the cop isn't racist."

 

[KeepTalking]

This isn't even close, though. S&P isn't just saying they weren't guilty, they were saying 'the only reason cop pulled me over is because he's a (racist)(Sexist)(whatever applies--ist) bastard.'

Then if the judge finds you guilty, finds no evidence of bigotry on the cop's part, and then forces you to recant your accusation, it would be comparable.

When, in traffic court, a person says "The only reason the cop pulled me over is because he's racist" and the judge doesn't buy it, the judge simply says "guilty, pay your fine", not "guilty, pay your fine, and say that the cop isn't racist."

That is not an example of a settlement, that is an example of a judgement. All kinds of crazy things can happen when one enters into a settlement to avoid a judgement, and sometimes the crazy things that happen involve having to make a statement like this one.

No one is forcing S&P to settle, they could continue with the case, and then they would not have to make this statement.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So it is nothing at all, nothing what-so-ever, that the government is insisting that this statement be in the settlement?

That's a complete non-issue?

Seriously?

 

[bilby]

The whole idea of out-of-court settlements is stupid. By all means, let two parties agree to a resolution for their conflict BEFORE going to court; but once legal action is started, it should be required to finish with a ruling by a judge in a court of law.

The idea of out-of-court settlements is that it lowers the court's workload; but I suspect that more issues would be settled BEFORE legal action commenced if people knew that going to court was an irrevocable decision to put the case in the hands of a neutral judge, and that they couldn't extort money out of people in return for dropping frivolous but potentially damaging, expensive, and/or drawn out lawsuits.

 

[Nexus]

Prosecutors are dropping charges against 17-year-old Enrique Del Rosario related to assaulting a police officer after video contradicted their claims.

Rosario wasn’t afilliated with El Grito, but he also happened to be filming when an officer shoved the woman standing next to him. In fact, Flores said that’s why he was targeted. Rosario’s lawyer Rebecca Heinegg said several officers then attacked Rosario, slamming him against the gate of a closed store and beating him with batons. “Basically, my client was a victim of a gang assault by the 72nd Precinct,” Heinegg told Max Jaeger for The Brooklyn Paper.

Once the attack started, Flores said, police began pushing people back and macing them to keep onlookers and cameras from seeing what was going on. Flores said that the injury police blamed Rosario for was caused by another cop. “This officer swung his nightstick and missed, hit another police officer across the head,” Flores said.

They bring up a good point about police body cams here.

Rosario’s camera was never recovered, and footage from NYPD police videographers seems to have disappeared, arousing Flores’ suspicion. “It’s not like his camera was just left on the street. They took it, and it never showed up in evidence.” Both Flores and Heinegg have tried to obtain NYPD footage of the events, but have been told it can’t be located.
“If we don’t have access to the cams the NYPD already uses, that’s how it’s going to be with the body cams,” Flores said. “How will these body cams ever work if this is how they deal with evidence?”

Notice that while this may seem like a happy ending, none of the lying police that nearly ruined a young man's life are facing charges.



Link

 

[fromderinside]

We're having it tough down here. Last year a guy was murdered here for not delivering drugs to another guy who was down here. Our cops sent for out of county cops because our government can't afford to support a sheriff's department and our police department can only afford one cop 50 hours a week.. Its OK though. Seems that the murdered guy is a drug dealer from Portland. He was killed by another drug dealer from Portland.

IOW Police state? Where?

More urban areas are so tough that they're encouraging criminals to go where there people can't afford, nor usually need, cops.

 

[Nexus]

IOW Police state? Where?

In all the places your personal anecdote doesn't cover and police are abusing the citizens. Also a police state can have high crime, remember Argentina during the 80s? Its just that now law enforcement is another gang of thugs on the street.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Prosecutors are dropping charges against 17-year-old Enrique Del Rosario related to assaulting a police officer after video contradicted their claims.



They bring up a good point about police body cams here.

Rosario’s camera was never recovered, and footage from NYPD police videographers seems to have disappeared, arousing Flores’ suspicion. “It’s not like his camera was just left on the street. They took it, and it never showed up in evidence.” Both Flores and Heinegg have tried to obtain NYPD footage of the events, but have been told it can’t be located.
“If we don’t have access to the cams the NYPD already uses, that’s how it’s going to be with the body cams,” Flores said. “How will these body cams ever work if this is how they deal with evidence?”

Notice that while this may seem like a happy ending, none of the lying police that nearly ruined a young man's life are facing charges.



Link

Yet another case to support my position that cops shouldn't be allowed to testify to something that isn't on camera but should be, unless the failure is due to the act of the criminals involved. (You don't get a free pass by destroying the camera of the cop that caught you.)