|
Post by WaTcHeR on Jan 25, 2006 17:49:24 GMT -5
Gee's guns drawn just to serve a temporary restraining order? Cops making people remove pants and underwear and then be maced? Cops and sexual contact with children? If this is all true and if police officers continue to do such misconduct and be excused for their action, something else might need to be done.
I guarantee you that if a few people just had a "little talk" with just one or two bad cops in every city, things would change. What I mean by a little talk is, send the cop back to work with a broken leg and maybe a broke arm or two and tell him to tell all his crooked cop friends what happened to him and why it happened. I would bet that the crooked cops in that police department, would sure the hell straighten their act up and in a hurry!
Sorry folks but such a lesson is way over due and I guarantee you it would send a message to all cops and that message is were getting tired of your crap!
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Jan 25, 2006 17:49:24 GMT -5
Gee's guns drawn just to serve a temporary restraining order? Cops making people remove pants and underwear and then be maced? Cops and sexual contact with children? If this is all true and if police officers continue to do such misconduct and be excused for their action, something else might need to be done.
I guarantee you that if a few people just had a "little talk" with just one or two bad cops in every city, things would change. What I mean by a little talk is, send the cop back to work with a broken leg and maybe a broke arm or two and tell him to tell all his crooked cop friends what happened to him and why it happened. I would bet that the crooked cops in that police department, would sure the hell straighten their act up and in a hurry!
Sorry folks but such a lesson is way over due and I guarantee you it would send a message to all cops and that message is were getting tired of your crap!
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 12, 2006 13:53:01 GMT -5
02/12/2006 - FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO -- An Aztec police officer was arrested Saturday afternoon in connection with a drive-by shooting that occurred earlier that morning.
Jose Martinez, 21, of Aztec, was charged with harboring or aiding a felon, a fourth-degree felony.
He, his girlfriend, and his cousin were allegedly in his truck when his cousin fired at a house. Martinez did not report the incident to police and when first questioned denied any knowledge of it.
Martinez, an officer with the Aztec Police Department since September 2005, is no longer working for the department, said Aztec Police Chief Mike Heal.
Heal said Martinez passed the department's background test when he was hired, and had a "very clean" record.
"We do the best we can to do background checks to make sure nothing like this would ever happen," Heal said.
Heal said this is the first time an officer in his department was involved in a drive-by shooting.
Martinez' cousin, Angela Garcia, 24, of Flora Vista, was charged with shooting from a motor vehicle, aggravated assault and tampering with evidence, all fourth-degree felonies, according to San Juan County Sheriff's Office Capt. Tim Black.
Martinez' girlfriend has not been charged at this time, Black said.
Martinez, while off-duty on Saturday morning, reportedly got into an argument several people in the parking lot of Sunray Park and Casino. When deputies arrived at 1:45 a.m., the crowd had dispersed and police action was taken.
Half an hour later, deputies responded to a report of shots being fired from a vehicle at a home on County Road 3010. John Candelaria, one of the individuals Martinez had reportedly argued with earlier, lived in the home.
Candelaria told deputies that he had been standing outside his house when a pickup truck drove by and someone inside the truck fired several shots. He said he believed Martinez had been inside the truck at the time of the shooting.
No injuries were reported.
Deputies found two .380-caliber shell casings in the road near Candelaria's house.
Martinez reportedly denied any knowledge of the shooting when questioned by deputies, but eventually cooperated and said he had been in the back seat of his truck when the shooting occurred, Black said.
Martinez said Garcia had been sitting in the passenger seat of the truck driven by his girlfriend. He said he believed they were going to visit one of Garcia's friends. Garcia instead gave directions that led them to Candelaria's home.
"Before he knew what was happening, Garcia had fired several rounds from a pistol into the air," the press release states.
The three left the house and drove Garcia to her home on County Road 3257 because Martinez "did not want (Garcia) to get in trouble," the release states.
Garcia denied any involvement in the shooting when first approached by deputies, but later admitted to hiding the pistol which police later found.
Garcia and Martinez have are at the San Juan County Detention Center on $25,000 cash-only bonds.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 12, 2006 13:53:01 GMT -5
02/12/2006 - FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO -- An Aztec police officer was arrested Saturday afternoon in connection with a drive-by shooting that occurred earlier that morning.
Jose Martinez, 21, of Aztec, was charged with harboring or aiding a felon, a fourth-degree felony.
He, his girlfriend, and his cousin were allegedly in his truck when his cousin fired at a house. Martinez did not report the incident to police and when first questioned denied any knowledge of it.
Martinez, an officer with the Aztec Police Department since September 2005, is no longer working for the department, said Aztec Police Chief Mike Heal.
Heal said Martinez passed the department's background test when he was hired, and had a "very clean" record.
"We do the best we can to do background checks to make sure nothing like this would ever happen," Heal said.
Heal said this is the first time an officer in his department was involved in a drive-by shooting.
Martinez' cousin, Angela Garcia, 24, of Flora Vista, was charged with shooting from a motor vehicle, aggravated assault and tampering with evidence, all fourth-degree felonies, according to San Juan County Sheriff's Office Capt. Tim Black.
Martinez' girlfriend has not been charged at this time, Black said.
Martinez, while off-duty on Saturday morning, reportedly got into an argument several people in the parking lot of Sunray Park and Casino. When deputies arrived at 1:45 a.m., the crowd had dispersed and police action was taken.
Half an hour later, deputies responded to a report of shots being fired from a vehicle at a home on County Road 3010. John Candelaria, one of the individuals Martinez had reportedly argued with earlier, lived in the home.
Candelaria told deputies that he had been standing outside his house when a pickup truck drove by and someone inside the truck fired several shots. He said he believed Martinez had been inside the truck at the time of the shooting.
No injuries were reported.
Deputies found two .380-caliber shell casings in the road near Candelaria's house.
Martinez reportedly denied any knowledge of the shooting when questioned by deputies, but eventually cooperated and said he had been in the back seat of his truck when the shooting occurred, Black said.
Martinez said Garcia had been sitting in the passenger seat of the truck driven by his girlfriend. He said he believed they were going to visit one of Garcia's friends. Garcia instead gave directions that led them to Candelaria's home.
"Before he knew what was happening, Garcia had fired several rounds from a pistol into the air," the press release states.
The three left the house and drove Garcia to her home on County Road 3257 because Martinez "did not want (Garcia) to get in trouble," the release states.
Garcia denied any involvement in the shooting when first approached by deputies, but later admitted to hiding the pistol which police later found.
Garcia and Martinez have are at the San Juan County Detention Center on $25,000 cash-only bonds.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 16, 2006 11:14:58 GMT -5
LOL
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 16, 2006 11:14:58 GMT -5
LOL
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 16, 2006 11:12:24 GMT -5
02/16/2006 - A Clayton County police officer was cited for civil contempt of court last week by Chief Magistrate Daphne Walker.
Walker accepted a written apology from Officer James S. Long, an eight-year veteran, and reprimanded him Feb. 9 in open court. The written apology means Long doesn't have to pay a $50 fine.
Long was testifying in a preliminary hearing Feb. 9 when Walker admonished him for being evasive in answering defense questions. After leaving the stand, Walker said, Long looked back over his shoulder in a "menacing and threatening" manner.
"We could not continue the proceedings because of your behavior upon your exit from the courtroom," Walker told Long during an afternoon hearing.
Long was detained at the courthouse from about 9:30 a.m. until the hearing ended about 4 p.m. but was never placed in a holding cell, said Clayton County assistant police Chief Jeff Turner.
Turner said Long probably would not face disciplinary actions but that the incident would be noted in his file.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 16, 2006 11:12:24 GMT -5
02/16/2006 - A Clayton County police officer was cited for civil contempt of court last week by Chief Magistrate Daphne Walker.
Walker accepted a written apology from Officer James S. Long, an eight-year veteran, and reprimanded him Feb. 9 in open court. The written apology means Long doesn't have to pay a $50 fine.
Long was testifying in a preliminary hearing Feb. 9 when Walker admonished him for being evasive in answering defense questions. After leaving the stand, Walker said, Long looked back over his shoulder in a "menacing and threatening" manner.
"We could not continue the proceedings because of your behavior upon your exit from the courtroom," Walker told Long during an afternoon hearing.
Long was detained at the courthouse from about 9:30 a.m. until the hearing ended about 4 p.m. but was never placed in a holding cell, said Clayton County assistant police Chief Jeff Turner.
Turner said Long probably would not face disciplinary actions but that the incident would be noted in his file.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 16, 2006 12:00:34 GMT -5
36-Year Police Veteran Accused Of Misconduct 02/16/2006 - JACKSON TOWNSHIP, Ohio -- After three internal police investigations this year, the Jackson Township Police Department is dealing with another investigation, NewsChannel5 reported. Lt. Bruce Wilson is accused of police misconduct. Wilson is a 36-year veteran on the force. Neither he nor Police Chief Harley Neftzer would comment on the case. This is the fourth internal investigation the department has launched since Jan. 11. The department is still investigating whether two other city employees were having sex on city time.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 16, 2006 12:00:34 GMT -5
36-Year Police Veteran Accused Of Misconduct 02/16/2006 - JACKSON TOWNSHIP, Ohio -- After three internal police investigations this year, the Jackson Township Police Department is dealing with another investigation, NewsChannel5 reported. Lt. Bruce Wilson is accused of police misconduct. Wilson is a 36-year veteran on the force. Neither he nor Police Chief Harley Neftzer would comment on the case. This is the fourth internal investigation the department has launched since Jan. 11. The department is still investigating whether two other city employees were having sex on city time.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Jan 23, 2006 12:47:58 GMT -5
01/22/2006 - WASHINGTON -- A D.C. police officer is caught riding down a street with his legs dangling over the side of a cruiser. An eyewitness photographed the officer as he rode on the hood of a police cruiser on I Street in Northeast at 5 p.m. Sunday. A second squad car was also following the police vehicle. Jason Lamberton said he took the photos from the second-floor window of his house. After taking the photos, he entered them along with some comments on a friend's Web site through his computer. The site features a web log for deaf people. Lamberton, who is deaf, is also a math whiz and calculated the speed of the cruisers at about 27 mph above the posted speed limit. Slideshow: Images From Scene With the assistance of a translator, Lamberton gave an interview to News4. "Luckily, I had my camera in my pocket when I saw the cop cars whizzing by with sirens blazing. The officer was riding on the hood of patrol car number 162, laughing as it ran past the stop sign on I Street," said Lamberton. When asked about his reaction, Lamberton replied, "Oh, my God. I thought it was stupid -- lack of common sense." The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department is now investigating safety issues relating to the incident. "We don't let citizens ride on hoods, and we shouldn't do it. It would be considered conduct unbecoming an officer if a cruiser ran a stop sign or was racing down the street," 1st District Cmdr. Diane Grooms said. "It could result in a suspension if an officer was involved in horseplay. If not, a reprimand would be put in the officer's jacket documenting this inappropriate behavior." Grooms also said the officer admitted he rode on the hood of the cruiser, and said it was done because he needed to be transported to his squad car about two blocks away. Police told News4 that if a normal citizen in the nation's capital were to be seen on top of a car, an officer would be required to give him/her a ticket and cite the person behind the wheel for reckless driving.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Jan 23, 2006 12:47:58 GMT -5
01/22/2006 - WASHINGTON -- A D.C. police officer is caught riding down a street with his legs dangling over the side of a cruiser. An eyewitness photographed the officer as he rode on the hood of a police cruiser on I Street in Northeast at 5 p.m. Sunday. A second squad car was also following the police vehicle. Jason Lamberton said he took the photos from the second-floor window of his house. After taking the photos, he entered them along with some comments on a friend's Web site through his computer. The site features a web log for deaf people. Lamberton, who is deaf, is also a math whiz and calculated the speed of the cruisers at about 27 mph above the posted speed limit. Slideshow: Images From Scene With the assistance of a translator, Lamberton gave an interview to News4. "Luckily, I had my camera in my pocket when I saw the cop cars whizzing by with sirens blazing. The officer was riding on the hood of patrol car number 162, laughing as it ran past the stop sign on I Street," said Lamberton. When asked about his reaction, Lamberton replied, "Oh, my God. I thought it was stupid -- lack of common sense." The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department is now investigating safety issues relating to the incident. "We don't let citizens ride on hoods, and we shouldn't do it. It would be considered conduct unbecoming an officer if a cruiser ran a stop sign or was racing down the street," 1st District Cmdr. Diane Grooms said. "It could result in a suspension if an officer was involved in horseplay. If not, a reprimand would be put in the officer's jacket documenting this inappropriate behavior." Grooms also said the officer admitted he rode on the hood of the cruiser, and said it was done because he needed to be transported to his squad car about two blocks away. Police told News4 that if a normal citizen in the nation's capital were to be seen on top of a car, an officer would be required to give him/her a ticket and cite the person behind the wheel for reckless driving.
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 21, 2006 10:19:21 GMT -5
02/21/2006 - I don't care what the laws or the Supreme Court say. WE are NOT going to have people running around, wearing guns..." Mark Edward Marchiafava did not break the law in Gonzales, La. on January 28, 2006. But nonetheless, he was handcuffed, arrested, and his firearm, which he was legally carrying in the open on his side that day, was confiscated and not returned. I don't know Mr. Marchiafava very well. We have had several email communications, but nothing more than that. We have not always agreed, and sometimes our discussions got heated. But what I do know is that Mr. Marchiafava's right to keep and bear arms and his property rights were violated by the Gonzales, La. police. When I deployed with the National Guard to New Orleans in support of relief and recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina, I remember a meeting on an abandoned tarmac (where we slept the night before inside our humvee) with the Louisiana JAG. We were informed, in no uncertain terms, that open carry was legal in Louisiana, that we were there to help enforce the laws of Louisiana, and the law stated the people had a right to keep and bear arms. He were told that unless we witnessed a crime being committed, under no circumstances were we to relieve people of their firearms if they were carrying them in the open. The Army and Air National Guard understand this. I wonder how brainless the Gonzales cops have to be to not get this simple concept. In Mr. Marchiafava's own words: After meeting my youngest daughter, Christie, and my adopted daughter, Kelly, along with Kelly's 2 year old daughter, Isabella, Kelly drove us to Gonzales, La. to visit my oldest daughter, Michelle. Needing to pick up something, I asked Kelly to drive into Tanger Factory Outlet. She dropped me off in front of the store, I ran in and out in less than 2 minutes while Kelly circled the parking lot. While waiting to check out, I noticed an older guy standing right outside, staring intently at me. I KNEW he was either an off duty cop or he had just CALLED the cops on me. Yes, I WAS openly carrying a gun, which is quite legal in Louisiana. The state constitution CLEARLY states so. It does, however, retain the right by the state to regulate concealed carry, something that doesn't come into play here. Sure enough, as I was paying, a Gonzales police car came cruising by slowly. After exiting the store with my purchase, I got into Kelly's car and within seconds, the cop turned on his lights and blipped his siren. Kelly exited and the cop told her it was ME he wanted to talk to. Carefully, I approached officer Rome, and he asked why I was wearing a gun. After telling him EVERY citizen had that right, he just stood there, speechless. I asked if he was aware of that, but STILL there was no answer. It took THREE further queries before he finally answered, "No, I didn't know that." Seemingly satisfied, he handed my driver's license back to me, and I heard him tell headquarters to print him out a copy of my driver's license info. At that point, I knew "they" were about to do "something." I got back into Kelly's car, not wanting to alarm them. Sure enough, as soon as we exited the center's parking lot, FOUR Gonzales cop cars swooped in and, in true TV cop fashion, with guns drawn and lots of loud shouting. I slowly exited the car, hands away from my side. Yes, I was roughly handcuffed to the point of having red marks on both wrists 3 hours later. I was transported to Gonzales Police headquarters. There, Officer David Breaux was trying to figure out just what to charge me with. Since he was holding Louisiana revised statutes, title 14 (criminal code) in his hands, I suggested he read 14:95, "Illegal carrying of weapons," which he did. I tried, in vain, to explain to him there is nothing in the entire book which prohibits anyone from openly carrying a weapon in Louisiana. His response: "Tell it to the judge." Another "officer," Billiot, transported me across the Mississippi river to the jail in Donaldsonville. On the ride over, I tried to explain to HIM what the law states and the rights of any citizen. He said, and I quote, "I don't care what the laws or the Supreme Court say. WE are NOT going to have people running around, wearing guns, with women and children everywhere." I was fingerprinted, photographed and released on a $200.00 bond. Yes, all this for a MISDEMEANOR and a $200.00 bond. I am still trying to retrieve my gun at this date. Now, let's take a look at what the law says. Louisiana state constitution Article 1 sec. 11 Right to Keep and Bear Arms The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 14 sec. 95 Illegal Carrying of Weapons A. Illegal carrying of weapons is: (1) The intentional concealing of any firearm, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon, on one's person, or (2) the ownership, possession, custody, use of any firearm, or any other instrumentality customarily used as a dangerous weapon, at any time by an enemy alien, or (3) the ownership, possession, custody or use of any tools, or dynamite, or nitroglycerine, or explosives, or other instrumentality customarily used by thieves or burglars at any time by any person with the intent to commit a crime ; or (4) the manufacture, ownership, possession, custody or use of any switchblade knife, spring knife or other knife or similar instrument or having a blade which may be automatically unfolded or extended from a handle by the manipulation of a button, switch, latch or similar contrivance. (5)(a) the intentional possession or use by any person of a dangerous weapon on a school campus during regular school hours or on a school bus. "School" means any elementary, secondary, high school, or vo-tech school in this state and "campus" means all facilities and property within the boundary of the school property. "School bus" means any motor bus being used to transport children to and from school or in connection with school activities. (b) the provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply to: (i) a peace officer as defined by RS:14:30(B) in the performance of his official duties. (ii) a school official or employee acting during the normal course of his employment or a student acting under the direction of such school official or employee. (iii) any person having the written permission of the principal or school board or engaged in competition or in marksmanship or safety instruction. United States Code, title 42, chapter 21, subchapter I, sec. 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any state or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, priviliges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purpose of this section, any act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. UPDATE FEB. 6TH, 2006 District Attorney, Tony Falterman, obtained a copy of the arrest report and, after reading it, dismissed the charge. According to his assistant, Melissa, "Mr. Falterman has read the report and considers it complete BS." A local reporter, Steve Ward with the Advocate, contacted chief of police Bill Landy concerning my arrest. According to Steve, the chief stated "We have a policy of arresting anyone carrying a gun without a permit. We don't care what Mr. Falterman says or does." I attempted to retrieve my gun, only to find out the Gonzales police department has a "policy" of sending all seized weapons to the state police crime lab for ballistics testing. So let's get this straight. A man broke no law. He is arrested. His property is confiscated. The prosecutor recognizes this case as complete crap. The police will not give back property, even though no crime was committed. Check out the letter Mr. Marchiafava received from the prosecutor in the case below. What kind of circus are they running down there in Gonzales? Should you want to contact the fascist "authorities" in Gonzales, La. on Mr. Marchiafava's behalf -- and on behalf of our constitutionally guaranteed rights -- please do so. The Gonzales Police Chief's name is Bill Landry. You can email him here: gonzpd@eatel.net Or if you're feeling particularly angry about this, give him a call and demand to know why a man who has committed no crime has been relieved of his property by his tyrannical staff, and why his officers have no respect for the laws they have sworn to enforce. His number is: 225-647-2841 libertyzone.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-dont-care-what-laws-or-supreme-court.html
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 21, 2006 10:19:21 GMT -5
02/21/2006 - I don't care what the laws or the Supreme Court say. WE are NOT going to have people running around, wearing guns..." Mark Edward Marchiafava did not break the law in Gonzales, La. on January 28, 2006. But nonetheless, he was handcuffed, arrested, and his firearm, which he was legally carrying in the open on his side that day, was confiscated and not returned. I don't know Mr. Marchiafava very well. We have had several email communications, but nothing more than that. We have not always agreed, and sometimes our discussions got heated. But what I do know is that Mr. Marchiafava's right to keep and bear arms and his property rights were violated by the Gonzales, La. police. When I deployed with the National Guard to New Orleans in support of relief and recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina, I remember a meeting on an abandoned tarmac (where we slept the night before inside our humvee) with the Louisiana JAG. We were informed, in no uncertain terms, that open carry was legal in Louisiana, that we were there to help enforce the laws of Louisiana, and the law stated the people had a right to keep and bear arms. He were told that unless we witnessed a crime being committed, under no circumstances were we to relieve people of their firearms if they were carrying them in the open. The Army and Air National Guard understand this. I wonder how brainless the Gonzales cops have to be to not get this simple concept. In Mr. Marchiafava's own words: After meeting my youngest daughter, Christie, and my adopted daughter, Kelly, along with Kelly's 2 year old daughter, Isabella, Kelly drove us to Gonzales, La. to visit my oldest daughter, Michelle. Needing to pick up something, I asked Kelly to drive into Tanger Factory Outlet. She dropped me off in front of the store, I ran in and out in less than 2 minutes while Kelly circled the parking lot. While waiting to check out, I noticed an older guy standing right outside, staring intently at me. I KNEW he was either an off duty cop or he had just CALLED the cops on me. Yes, I WAS openly carrying a gun, which is quite legal in Louisiana. The state constitution CLEARLY states so. It does, however, retain the right by the state to regulate concealed carry, something that doesn't come into play here. Sure enough, as I was paying, a Gonzales police car came cruising by slowly. After exiting the store with my purchase, I got into Kelly's car and within seconds, the cop turned on his lights and blipped his siren. Kelly exited and the cop told her it was ME he wanted to talk to. Carefully, I approached officer Rome, and he asked why I was wearing a gun. After telling him EVERY citizen had that right, he just stood there, speechless. I asked if he was aware of that, but STILL there was no answer. It took THREE further queries before he finally answered, "No, I didn't know that." Seemingly satisfied, he handed my driver's license back to me, and I heard him tell headquarters to print him out a copy of my driver's license info. At that point, I knew "they" were about to do "something." I got back into Kelly's car, not wanting to alarm them. Sure enough, as soon as we exited the center's parking lot, FOUR Gonzales cop cars swooped in and, in true TV cop fashion, with guns drawn and lots of loud shouting. I slowly exited the car, hands away from my side. Yes, I was roughly handcuffed to the point of having red marks on both wrists 3 hours later. I was transported to Gonzales Police headquarters. There, Officer David Breaux was trying to figure out just what to charge me with. Since he was holding Louisiana revised statutes, title 14 (criminal code) in his hands, I suggested he read 14:95, "Illegal carrying of weapons," which he did. I tried, in vain, to explain to him there is nothing in the entire book which prohibits anyone from openly carrying a weapon in Louisiana. His response: "Tell it to the judge." Another "officer," Billiot, transported me across the Mississippi river to the jail in Donaldsonville. On the ride over, I tried to explain to HIM what the law states and the rights of any citizen. He said, and I quote, "I don't care what the laws or the Supreme Court say. WE are NOT going to have people running around, wearing guns, with women and children everywhere." I was fingerprinted, photographed and released on a $200.00 bond. Yes, all this for a MISDEMEANOR and a $200.00 bond. I am still trying to retrieve my gun at this date. Now, let's take a look at what the law says. Louisiana state constitution Article 1 sec. 11 Right to Keep and Bear Arms The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 14 sec. 95 Illegal Carrying of Weapons A. Illegal carrying of weapons is: (1) The intentional concealing of any firearm, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon, on one's person, or (2) the ownership, possession, custody, use of any firearm, or any other instrumentality customarily used as a dangerous weapon, at any time by an enemy alien, or (3) the ownership, possession, custody or use of any tools, or dynamite, or nitroglycerine, or explosives, or other instrumentality customarily used by thieves or burglars at any time by any person with the intent to commit a crime ; or (4) the manufacture, ownership, possession, custody or use of any switchblade knife, spring knife or other knife or similar instrument or having a blade which may be automatically unfolded or extended from a handle by the manipulation of a button, switch, latch or similar contrivance. (5)(a) the intentional possession or use by any person of a dangerous weapon on a school campus during regular school hours or on a school bus. "School" means any elementary, secondary, high school, or vo-tech school in this state and "campus" means all facilities and property within the boundary of the school property. "School bus" means any motor bus being used to transport children to and from school or in connection with school activities. (b) the provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply to: (i) a peace officer as defined by RS:14:30(B) in the performance of his official duties. (ii) a school official or employee acting during the normal course of his employment or a student acting under the direction of such school official or employee. (iii) any person having the written permission of the principal or school board or engaged in competition or in marksmanship or safety instruction. United States Code, title 42, chapter 21, subchapter I, sec. 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any state or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, priviliges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purpose of this section, any act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. UPDATE FEB. 6TH, 2006 District Attorney, Tony Falterman, obtained a copy of the arrest report and, after reading it, dismissed the charge. According to his assistant, Melissa, "Mr. Falterman has read the report and considers it complete BS." A local reporter, Steve Ward with the Advocate, contacted chief of police Bill Landy concerning my arrest. According to Steve, the chief stated "We have a policy of arresting anyone carrying a gun without a permit. We don't care what Mr. Falterman says or does." I attempted to retrieve my gun, only to find out the Gonzales police department has a "policy" of sending all seized weapons to the state police crime lab for ballistics testing. So let's get this straight. A man broke no law. He is arrested. His property is confiscated. The prosecutor recognizes this case as complete crap. The police will not give back property, even though no crime was committed. Check out the letter Mr. Marchiafava received from the prosecutor in the case below. What kind of circus are they running down there in Gonzales? Should you want to contact the fascist "authorities" in Gonzales, La. on Mr. Marchiafava's behalf -- and on behalf of our constitutionally guaranteed rights -- please do so. The Gonzales Police Chief's name is Bill Landry. You can email him here: gonzpd@eatel.net Or if you're feeling particularly angry about this, give him a call and demand to know why a man who has committed no crime has been relieved of his property by his tyrannical staff, and why his officers have no respect for the laws they have sworn to enforce. His number is: 225-647-2841 libertyzone.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-dont-care-what-laws-or-supreme-court.html
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 22, 2006 10:43:37 GMT -5
02/22/2006 - The Chicago Police Department has filed a complaint to fire an officer who has been indicted on charges of beating a 14-year-old girl last year after she was suspected of shoplifting at a Southwest Side JCPenney store. Officer Alexandra Martinez faces termination in the case, filed Jan. 31 with the Police Board. The girl was never charged with shoplifting, and her family has filed a federal lawsuit against the city. Grand jurors indicted Martinez, assigned to the Chicago Lawn District, on two counts of felony official misconduct and one count of battery after finding she hit the 14-year-old girl in the head. Official misconduct is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The store video camera recorded Martinez allegedly beating Michel'le Hutchinson in an interview room at the Ford City Mall Penney store in April 2005. www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/nearwest/chi-0602220167feb22,1,3675728.story?coll=chi-newslocalnearwest-hed
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 22, 2006 10:43:37 GMT -5
02/22/2006 - The Chicago Police Department has filed a complaint to fire an officer who has been indicted on charges of beating a 14-year-old girl last year after she was suspected of shoplifting at a Southwest Side JCPenney store. Officer Alexandra Martinez faces termination in the case, filed Jan. 31 with the Police Board. The girl was never charged with shoplifting, and her family has filed a federal lawsuit against the city. Grand jurors indicted Martinez, assigned to the Chicago Lawn District, on two counts of felony official misconduct and one count of battery after finding she hit the 14-year-old girl in the head. Official misconduct is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The store video camera recorded Martinez allegedly beating Michel'le Hutchinson in an interview room at the Ford City Mall Penney store in April 2005. www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/nearwest/chi-0602220167feb22,1,3675728.story?coll=chi-newslocalnearwest-hed
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 23, 2006 11:07:41 GMT -5
Cops will be cops, corrupt!
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 23, 2006 11:07:41 GMT -5
Cops will be cops, corrupt!
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 23, 2006 11:03:24 GMT -5
02/23/2006 - Chief says it's common police practice; others call it an illegal wiretap. By Tony Plohetski AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Thursday, February 23, 2006 Austin police detectives investigating two colleagues accused of beating a handcuffed suspect secretly taped a private conversation between the officers and their attorney during a November interview at police headquarters, according to documents obtained Wednesday. State and federal laws prohibit investigators from intercepting discussions between lawyers and their clients, with only a few exceptions; state law also prohibits recording other people's conversations without their knowledge. Police Chief Stan Knee defended the detectives, who left a hidden camera running when they briefly left the interview room to photocopy a document. "It was not an attempt to surreptitiously record a conversation," Knee said. "If the attorney had mentioned he was going to talk to his client, the detective would have had an obligation to stop the tape." Legal experts said the incident could affect the case against the officers and raises questions about the legality of what is described as a common police practice. Austin defense attorney Keith Hampton, a lobbyist for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said most lawyers realize they are being recorded when they are in police interview rooms. However, "leaving the tape on when the attorney is talking to his client to me is outrageous," Hampton said. "They are supposed to turn the tape off." Bill Allison, a University of Texas clinical law professor, added: "It is a classic wiretap when you don't have consent." The lawyer involved, state Rep. Terry Keel, a former Travis County sheriff and prosecutor who is representing officer Christopher Gray and former officer William Heilman, has asked a judge to dismiss all statements his clients made to detectives during the Nov. 21 interview. Keel declined to comment on the conversation or the recording. But during a pretrial hearing earlier this month, Keel asked Sgt. Mark Spangler, who supervises the department's public integrity unit, why investigators left the camera on after leaving the room. Spangler testified that the department tapes all witness and suspect interviews but that conversations between attorneys and clients were not included, according to transcripts of the hearing. Under further questioning by Keel, Spangler testified that detectives recorded Keel and his clients and that police are allowed to record similar attorney-client conversations, which he said could later be eliminated from the record and "separated from anything that would then come in at the trial." Spangler testified that he thought the law concerning the taping of certain conversations had been repealed. Knee said Wednesday that the department will examine its practices but that it appeared from an initial review that the detectives did nothing wrong. Investigators do not start and stop recording when they leave an interview room because they "do not want to compromise the integrity of the tapes," police spokesman Kevin Buchman said. "We don't want to give the impression or have it construed that these tapes were edited." In December, about a month after their interview with detectives, Heilman and Gray were indicted, along with a third officer, on an official oppression charge after prosecutors alleged that they beat 25-year-old Ramon Hernandez after a minor traffic accident in North Austin. Police have said Hernandez left the scene and Heilman found him about a block away. Hernandez, they said, struggled with Heilman, and three officers eventually handcuffed Hernandez. Keel has said the force was necessary to subdue Hernandez, who received cuts to his head and face and puncture wounds that appeared to be from a Taser stun gun. Gray remains suspended without pay. Heilman is no longer with the department. When Gray and Heilman were interviewed at police headquarters, Spangler said he could not remember if Keel and the officers were aware that they were being recorded, according to the transcript. Christine Russo, who works for the private transcription service used by the department, said that the detectives were out of the room for about five minutes and that Keel's conversation with his clients "concerned something different than what they were being interviewed about." According to the documents, Russo sent an e-mail to Spangler in December: "There is a confidential discussion between the attorney and client with (the detectives) out of the room about other cases Heilman is involved with in the department. Should that be omitted?" Spangler responded in an e-mail: "Please include the entire conversation. We can then redact what needs to be taken out." Allison, the UT professor, said the law includes narrow exceptions for law officers, including suspicion that a suspect and attorney might be colluding to hide a crime. But "the immediate suspicion from the courts is going to be, 'This is bad, and the burden of proof is going to be put on the prosecutor and the police to justify their behavior,' " he said. Mike Sheffield, president of the Austin Police Association, said he is concerned about preserving the rights of the accused officers. "The law is very clear," Sheffield said. "As police officers, we are expected to obey all laws and follow the Constitution. There are no exceptions to that." www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/23taping.html?COXnetJSessionIDbuild120=D9MZLpbgky0Q8qIaJkWDDPZVtvLR1vyZPxKVh9AtSO8KNfVBBfzV!170152973&UrAuth=`NcNUOaNWUbTTUWUXUWUZT[UUUWUcUcUZU`UaUcTYWVVZV&urcm=y
|
|
|
Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 23, 2006 11:03:24 GMT -5
02/23/2006 - Chief says it's common police practice; others call it an illegal wiretap. By Tony Plohetski AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Thursday, February 23, 2006 Austin police detectives investigating two colleagues accused of beating a handcuffed suspect secretly taped a private conversation between the officers and their attorney during a November interview at police headquarters, according to documents obtained Wednesday. State and federal laws prohibit investigators from intercepting discussions between lawyers and their clients, with only a few exceptions; state law also prohibits recording other people's conversations without their knowledge. Police Chief Stan Knee defended the detectives, who left a hidden camera running when they briefly left the interview room to photocopy a document. "It was not an attempt to surreptitiously record a conversation," Knee said. "If the attorney had mentioned he was going to talk to his client, the detective would have had an obligation to stop the tape." Legal experts said the incident could affect the case against the officers and raises questions about the legality of what is described as a common police practice. Austin defense attorney Keith Hampton, a lobbyist for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said most lawyers realize they are being recorded when they are in police interview rooms. However, "leaving the tape on when the attorney is talking to his client to me is outrageous," Hampton said. "They are supposed to turn the tape off." Bill Allison, a University of Texas clinical law professor, added: "It is a classic wiretap when you don't have consent." The lawyer involved, state Rep. Terry Keel, a former Travis County sheriff and prosecutor who is representing officer Christopher Gray and former officer William Heilman, has asked a judge to dismiss all statements his clients made to detectives during the Nov. 21 interview. Keel declined to comment on the conversation or the recording. But during a pretrial hearing earlier this month, Keel asked Sgt. Mark Spangler, who supervises the department's public integrity unit, why investigators left the camera on after leaving the room. Spangler testified that the department tapes all witness and suspect interviews but that conversations between attorneys and clients were not included, according to transcripts of the hearing. Under further questioning by Keel, Spangler testified that detectives recorded Keel and his clients and that police are allowed to record similar attorney-client conversations, which he said could later be eliminated from the record and "separated from anything that would then come in at the trial." Spangler testified that he thought the law concerning the taping of certain conversations had been repealed. Knee said Wednesday that the department will examine its practices but that it appeared from an initial review that the detectives did nothing wrong. Investigators do not start and stop recording when they leave an interview room because they "do not want to compromise the integrity of the tapes," police spokesman Kevin Buchman said. "We don't want to give the impression or have it construed that these tapes were edited." In December, about a month after their interview with detectives, Heilman and Gray were indicted, along with a third officer, on an official oppression charge after prosecutors alleged that they beat 25-year-old Ramon Hernandez after a minor traffic accident in North Austin. Police have said Hernandez left the scene and Heilman found him about a block away. Hernandez, they said, struggled with Heilman, and three officers eventually handcuffed Hernandez. Keel has said the force was necessary to subdue Hernandez, who received cuts to his head and face and puncture wounds that appeared to be from a Taser stun gun. Gray remains suspended without pay. Heilman is no longer with the department. When Gray and Heilman were interviewed at police headquarters, Spangler said he could not remember if Keel and the officers were aware that they were being recorded, according to the transcript. Christine Russo, who works for the private transcription service used by the department, said that the detectives were out of the room for about five minutes and that Keel's conversation with his clients "concerned something different than what they were being interviewed about." According to the documents, Russo sent an e-mail to Spangler in December: "There is a confidential discussion between the attorney and client with (the detectives) out of the room about other cases Heilman is involved with in the department. Should that be omitted?" Spangler responded in an e-mail: "Please include the entire conversation. We can then redact what needs to be taken out." Allison, the UT professor, said the law includes narrow exceptions for law officers, including suspicion that a suspect and attorney might be colluding to hide a crime. But "the immediate suspicion from the courts is going to be, 'This is bad, and the burden of proof is going to be put on the prosecutor and the police to justify their behavior,' " he said. Mike Sheffield, president of the Austin Police Association, said he is concerned about preserving the rights of the accused officers. "The law is very clear," Sheffield said. "As police officers, we are expected to obey all laws and follow the Constitution. There are no exceptions to that." www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/23taping.html?COXnetJSessionIDbuild120=D9MZLpbgky0Q8qIaJkWDDPZVtvLR1vyZPxKVh9AtSO8KNfVBBfzV!170152973&UrAuth=`NcNUOaNWUbTTUWUXUWUZT[UUUWUcUcUZU`UaUcTYWVVZV&urcm=y
|
|