Wednesday, August 23, 2006

The Police State?

Anon 6:32, in the comments of my Drug Money? post asks, "Police State We're Living In" ? Fred ! How can you say that ? Can you qualify that? As I responded to him, I'm sure most of us would have a different definition of what a police state consists of.

Certainly efforts to take away American's civil rights have been going on since this country was founded and, for my fellow Bush Haters, this didn't all start with him. All, or parts, of the PATRIOT Act have been proposed by people from both sides of the aisle for quite some time.

Then, we have asset forfeiture laws. Laws that are generally civil actions (correct me if I'm wrong here) brought against those who have supposedly committed crimes. I have no problem with those criminals who profit greatly from illegal acts having their ill- gotten gains taken from them, but it should be done only on conviction and only when the criminal responsible has his or her assets seized, not someone else not involved.

That isn't the way it always happens, though. Asset forfeiture proceedings can be taken against people who knew nothing of the crime and only had property involved, like the guy in Oakland who was using a relative's car while soliciting a prostitute. The relative's car was seized.

I've had this verified by law enforcement people. If you own a house somewhere, rent it out and the tenants grow pot and get caught, your house can be seized and sold, although you had no idea what was going on.

Past Eureka Police Chief, Arnie Millsap, was quoted some years ago, in regards to forfeiture of people not involved in crimes, "We don't do that up here". I'd say that in itself is an admission that this is done. I'm glad they don't do it up here, if he's telling the truth.

The fact that many departments do it and it gets made easier by an occasional court ruling, while not an indication to most of a Police State, is certainly indicative to me of law enforcement getting out of hand and having more control of people- innocent people- than they should have.

Soboriety Check Points

It's been touched on by at least one other blogger: The soboriety check points that are all in vogue with the police and the nanny staters nowadays.

I've been offended by stops without probable cause for decades. Some of you older folks might remember back in the '70s they did something similar to soboriety checkpoints for vehicle safety. I forget what they called them.

The CHP would put up a checkpoint somewhere, unannounced. All the ones I'd gone through were placed so there was no way to avoid them. Last one that caught me was in the northbound (or is that west bound?) lane of Myrtle Avenue in Eureka, right after you came up around the hill off Old Arcata Road.

Once you came around the corner there was no way to avoid it. They motion you over and put your car through a safety inspection, giving you a fix- it- ticket for any violations found. Really humiliating to me, at the time. I think it still would be. It would really piss me off. I'm just driving along minding my own business and get pulled over for not doing anything and have to go through a big hassle.

As an aside, back in '84, while in the College of the Redwoods Police Academy, the late Sgt. (later to be Captain) Baarts, of the local Highway Patrol office taught the Traffic class that was part of the Admin of Justice curicullim.

As part of that class we did this thing where you play a officer being interviewed for the job of traffic supervisor of a local police department. One of the questions I was asked was if I supported any kind of roadside safety checks, the kind I've been referring to. They'd stopped doing them a few years earlier, the reason which escapes me now.

Anyway, I said something along the lines of, "No, I won't support stopping people on the road without probable cause. I don't think that's right. We're not a police state.". He seemed surprised by the answer. I got the impression he disagreed.

He went on to say that he thought we got a good deal with those checkpoints as some states require you to pay for a mechanical inspection before you can get your car registered so this saved people money. Regardless of that, he said my answer of requiring probable cause was a good one. I felt good about it.

So, they got rid of those safety checks, then eventually talked someone into these soboriety check points. I'm not sure just how far I think the police should be allowed to go but, seems to me, we've already started down the slippery slope with these soboriety check points.

First it was just for drunk drivers. Now, not only is anyone who's been drinking stopped, they check drivers licenses and pop people for various violations like not wearing a seatbelt. I can't help wonder if they're also running computer checks as I keep reading in the paper about people getting arrested on warrants at soboriety checkpoints.

What will they be checking us for next at these checkpoints? At this point, since the courts seem to think there's nothing wrong with what's going on, I'm sure they can be persuaded to allow even more search and seizure to be done at these stops.

Today's Times- Standard has a My Word column by Rio Dell resident and local gadfly, Jim Garvey, who also seems to believe soboriety checkpoints are unconstitutional. His column is a bit convoluted and hard to follow, at least for me. Nice to see I'm not alone, though.

Asset Forfeiture and Soboriety Checkpoints are just two issue in regards to the Police State. Surveillance and the PATRIOT Act are others where, although we may not be there yet for many people's description of the Police State, it should be close enough to give one pause.

Let's never mind efforts by some states and localities to disarm the citizenry and only allow the police, criminals and military to own guns (although I'll admit that issue hasn't been as hard pressed in recent years, at least on the national level).

I'm sure some of our commentors on this blog from both the Left and Right will be able to come up with other example of, if we're not a Police State now, we're at least heading towards being one. So let's hear from the Left and Right. If there's one thing the Bush Administration can take credit for, it's bringing together elements of both the Left and Right in defending our freedoms.


At 10:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for fighting the good fight Fred, these intimidation tactics are certainly in use by state actors and statist authoritarian types alike.

At 10:57 AM, Blogger Heraldo said...

Great post, Fred. As people get used to these various invasions and intrusions, it is easier for the envelope to keep getting pushed. Too many people are already accepting an erosion of their rights because of so much fear promoted by the Bush Administration.

Heaven forbid we ever end up with a situation like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, where armed paramilitary mercenaries were patrolling the streets.

At 10:59 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Speaking of Asset Forfeiture, I couldn't help but chuckle at this spam that just arrived in my inbox a few minutes ago. Love the url:

Here Is Your Complete Local Government Auction/Seizures List:

Here you Will find Your Complete list of local seizures and THOUSANDS
of items from criminals, bankruptcies and foreclosures.

To avoid a storage nightmare, your government must get rid of
everything ASAP. As a result, you can get unbelievable deals at
government auctions.

At 11:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here are some good questions the EPD needs to answer immediately:

Regarding the Eureka police officers who murdered Cherie Moore in cold blood...

Were THEY tested for substance abuse IMMEDIATELY after that incident?
How about the CHP officer who ran over the foreign exchange students at M and Harris?
The EPD and CHP who tortured 16 year old girls with pepperspray?

It seems to me that sobriety checkpoints should be established inside the police department with RANDOM drug testing of all officers.

If the cops, judges and the politicians all love this "sobriety checking" so much, shouldn't THEY be subjected to it?

At 11:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about Schwartzenegger?

He gets involved in a motorcycle accident.... has no license... no insurance.... what a crock!
Did HE have his piss tested????

How about cheney?

Shoots a guy in THE FACE with a shotgun and refuses to submit to a piss test or an interview with the cops until after he sobers up.

The cops are nothing but a bunch of failed football goons who wanna punish us all.

And they whine and whine.... "ohhhh we need new bulletproof vests..... we need new cars"


Take a look at how many EPD squad cars are parked in the driveways of private homes.

Nice perk huh?

"but weeeeeeee neeeeeeeed more patrol cars"

what a pile of CRAP

At 11:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...



Cheney did not shoot anyone, he just took the heat because no one would have believed him if he told the truth anyway.

So who shot that guy then? Hint!

First name kinda ryhmes with mama.

Homeland Security
Unofficial Part-timer
(with full benefits tho)

At 12:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred I have a few comments to make but first I'll have to respond to 11:19 spitting out hateful comments and crap.

1st The Governor had a license, he just didn't have the motorcycle endorsement. As the the no insurance I seriously doubt it as someone with that much to lose (financial) would not go without insurance because if he got in an accident, his fame, would prompt some moron like 11:19 to get an ambulance chaser to go after him for the big bucks.

2nd the moron's allegagtions about Dick Cheney. I read up on that ncident too and never heard anything about Cheney refusing to talk to the police or ANY indication he had been drinking.

3rd I enjoyed 11:19's comment
"the cops are nothing but a bunch of failed football goons who wanna punish us all". That kind of hate comes from someone who probably is not that bright (kinda dumb) and has more than likely had some negative contact with the cops. It goes to prove my point that he is a moron.

I think of one of my last sightings of a uniformed EPD officer, she was about 5' and 100 pounds. Some failed football goon!

Then we have anon 11:12, probably the same as 11:19 but it really doesn't matter. Just a loser that blindly hates cops, probably because he's been in the back seat of one of those cop cars on several occaisions!

Now that I got that out of my system;

Fred, you said "I've verified by law enforcement people. If you own a house somewhere, rent it out and the tenants grow pot and get caught, your house can be seized and sold, although you had no idea what was going on" Well I am hesitant to call you a liar but, what kind of "law enforcement people" did you talk to? Can't be anyone in the know! First of all the California asset forfieture laws DO NOT allow seizing and forfeiting real property (a house a barn or land). The old or previous law allowed the seizure of real property but that changed in the early 1990's. Federal law still allows the forfeiture of real property, but is seldom done. And on those occaisions when it is done an innocent third party, like a landlord or a bank will not have their property taken away. It is possibly that the property owner is involved in the criminal activity but the cops would have to prove it, not just a hunch. Maybe you can give an example of an exception, not just something someone like 11:19 put on a blog. What you said is simply not true. You could ask Eric, but I'm sure he'll comment, and if he doesn't know the answer he can research it.

I can't say for certain about the Oakland case you mentioned, the cops seizing a car used by a guy to solicite a prostitute and the car belonged to a relative. But I doubt if Jimmy used aunt Jenny's or gradma's car to pickup a prostitute the city of Oakland would seize and keep the car. Remember there is a difference between seizing (impounding) and actually forfeiting ownership.

Your further comments on asset forfeiture are inaccurate and you can't back it up with real FACTS! So your statement;

"is certainly indicative to me of law enforcement getting out of hand"

is more inflamatory than factual.

I too remember the safety check points of the early 70's ? It did piss me off but, more because I had someplace to be and they interupted my schedule. As to the Sobriety check points ..... I'm not so sure. MADD has a big lobby, 20 years ago this would not have flown. But then again drunk driving deaths are down over the last 20 years.

Then you get into the Patriot Act, and Surveillance (I assume you're talking about the NSA surveillance). Times are different now, with 911 and future potiential terrorist attacks on the US or US citizens. You're a self admitted Bush Hater so whatever he does is wrong. Now really; if Gore or Edwards were president and do the same thing would you really dislike it so much ? You won't admit it in print but it would be .... different then.

I read these blogs, some are entertaining and some are informative. I expect more out of you Fred.


At 12:40 PM, Blogger Fred said...

11:12 wrote, "How about the CHP officer who ran over the foreign exchange students at M and Harris?
The EPD and CHP who tortured 16 year old girls with pepperspray?".

A slight correction: I believe that was a sheriff's deputy that hit the foreign exchange students.

It was the sheriff's deputies, not CHP or EPD that was involved in the "pepper spray incident". The sixteen year old was not tortured.

She refused to leave Congressman Riggs office after she was asked repeatedly to leave. Once the pepper spray was applied, she got up and was taken into custody and no more pepper spray was applied to her.

The others with her still refused to leave and pepper spray was applied multiple times. Eventually, they were taken into custody as well.

At 12:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:52 time to go back to the Home and get you morning medications (part of the full benefits).

At 1:11 PM, Blogger Fred said...

12:37 wrote, "First of all the California asset forfieture laws DO NOT allow seizing and forfeiting real property (a house a barn or land). The old or previous law allowed the seizure of real property but that changed in the early 1990's.".

That's news to me. Perhaps that's why Oakland was tied up in a court case over the asset forfeiture policies they have regarding prostitution. That court case, I might add, is the only reason the Eureka City Council didn't seriously consider doing that here not long ago. They were worried about getting tied up in court cases, so they decided to wait and see what happened with Oakland.

Oh, as far as what law enforcement officers led me to believe what I've posted, I've already mentioned Millsap. I also used to do some work for a retired Sacramento County Homicide detective, Dave Wilson.

Dave and his wife Louise move to McKinleyville to retire. The moved to Shasta after being here only a couple years.

I was discussing asset forfeiture with Dave one day and mentioned that cops didn't have to prove a property owner was involved in the crime to begin forfeiture proceedings. He replied, "That's right!". Of course, that was some time ago so maybe things have changed. I don't know. I would suspect things have gotten worse in that regard.

I have read a little here and there about how agencies love asset forfeiture because they can line their department's coffers, depending on how they divvy up the money- different interested parties getting a share of the booty.

There was that one story about the rich guy in Malibu. Someone told the cops he was growing pot on his property. They raided the place and the rich guy was shot and killed during the raid. No pot was found on his property. Supposedly, the map of his property the narcs were carrying had the appraised value of his property written over his lot.

Wonder why they'd care enough about how much his property was worth to make a note of it on their map?

12:37 also wrote, "You're a self admitted Bush Hater so whatever he does is wrong.".

Nope. I realize many on the Left that visit this blog do feel that way. That's why I prefaced my comments with a note to the Bush haters that our evolving into a police state has been going on long before Bush. It comes from both sides of the aisle.

I'll give Bush credit when credit is due as I will anyone. To say, as some Bush haters do, things would be different if their man, Gore or Kerry, was in office, is a stretch.

There's no way one could say just how different things would be if someone else was in the White House under the same circumstance.

My gut feeling is that there might have been a bit more of a concern for protection of civil liberties with Gore or Kerry, but there's no way to say that for sure. I'm sure to some extent they'd have joined in the hysteria, just like everyone else did.

In the days just after 9/11, I felt Bush was handling things fairly well. Once he started doing things, I think things fell apart. I guess it's fair to blame the President, after all, the buck stops there.

But, as I said here long ago, I think Bush is pretty much a stuffed shirt. I don't know that he really has all that much in the way of personal convictions or political philosophy. That's why he's such a poor communicator: Whenever he talks about something, it's not coming from his personal beliefs, it's just something he's been told to say by his staff.

When Bush first came to office, I thought he was a breath of fresh air. I hated Clinton. Now it almost seems like the Clinton days were the good old days. I guess I still dislike Clinton, but I decided to stop spelling his name Klinton.

At 1:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, the only thing you are correct about is the Malibu incident. The sunset clause on the state Asset forfeiture law was up for review when that occurred and that was the main issue that caused the changes.

And just because some retired cop told you something several years ago (and memory fades) doesn't make it a fact.

Do you have any idea on how forfeited money is distributed ? Do you think the cops just put the money in a drawer or safe and then spend it as they like ?

A certain amount of the money goes back to the agencies but I'm sure it's not like you think it is.

At 1:49 PM, Blogger Fred said...

1:32 writes,"And just because some retired cop told you something several years ago (and memory fades) doesn't make it a fact.".

And, just because you believe whatever you've been told, doesn't necessarily make it a fact, either.

He also writes, "A certain amount of the money goes back to the agencies but I'm sure it's not like you think it is.".

What I've heard is that different jurisdictions have different policies. Usually it's something along the line of a certain percentage of the take being distributed to whatever parties are involved. That could be quite a lucrative endeavor, depending on the cash value of seized items or cash itself.

At 1:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The state code outlines the percentages specific agencies get. It's not WHATEVER I've been told, it's the law. In black and white. You can verify it.

You are out of your element on this and shouldn't make comments unless you label them as your opinion or something somebody somewhere told you ! This kind of off the cuff crap takes away from the good points you make.

At 2:15 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Ok. You're obviously the expert on asset forfeiture here, despite nobody knowing who you are.

I would have assumed there was some policy that determines what money goes to whom. If you want to call that the THE LAW, fine.

You may want to clarify, though, why you're saying there's a policy for distributing forfeiture assets then, in the next breath, saying that asset forfeiture isn't legal under state law. I assume you're suggesting only some forms of forfeiture aren't legal? Or, perhaps that asset forfeiture proceedings are never filed against anyone that doesn't deserve them? News to me.

You wrote, "You are out of your element on this and shouldn't make comments unless you label them as your opinion or something somebody somewhere told you !"

I think most who've been coming here for a while know everything I put up here is MY OPINION, unless I specify otherwise. I've been more than happy to concede making a mistake or two or having unclear memories.

Seems to me, if there's anyone saying that he knows exactly the way everything is, it's you. I've already made reference to Millsap saying something and someone else agreeing with me on something else.

I assume nobody ever told you anything? You just wrote the book on asset forfeiture?

At 2:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We do have a local expert on asset forfeiture that could clear up any and all questions. Perhaps Brian Morrissey could involve him in this dialogue.

At 2:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are we cross Fred?

There you go again, I never said I wrote the book or than I was an expert but, I did read the book ? And the book is readily available, ask Eric Kirk?

What I said is under current California law real property (land, houses, etc) cannot be seized. Under current federal law real property can be seized and forfeited. Obviously money can be seized.

Who is Brian Morrissey ? A lawyer?

At 3:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:12 a.m., you want cops and other public officials tested for dope-how about the DA? You didn't mention him.

At 3:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Asset forfeiture laws are codified in California statutes. You could research it because I also agree you're off base on this. I usually like what you have to say, but saying we have a police state because of inaccurate information about asset forfeiture and DUI checkpoints a few times a year is absurd. As a postscript, I've been driving for twenty years and have never even gone through a DUI checkpoint.

At 3:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dumb ass Disappointed at 1237:

Dear idiot. Having a driver's license does NOT allow you to ride a motorcycle. It's a special license and it requires special insurance. Asshole.

It's ANOTHER law that the idiot governor should obey. ASSHOLE.

And asshole face, Cheney DID refuse to meet with the local law enforcement 'til after he sobered up.


And fuck your comments about the cops dickwad. Ya never answered my question.


At 3:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cheney was 'drunk'

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 11:47 AM on February 22, 2006.

'This was a South Texas hunt...Of course there was drinking. There's always drinking. Lots of it.'

According to Doug Thompson, a written report from a secret service agent guarding Dick Cheney, the Veep was "clearly inebriated" at the time of the shooting.

What other cause for delay in reporting the incident if not time to sober up? According to Thompson, "When asked if a blood alcohol test had been performed on Whittington, the doctors who treated him...refused to answer," and "One admits privately he was ordered by the Secret Service to 'never discuss the case with the press.'"

Whether Cheney had the "one beer with lunch" as he admits, or whether he slugged a few more, the blood thinners he takes for his bum ticker could, according to doctors, make him "legally drunk now after consuming just one drink."

There's a big difference between an accidental shooting and an accidental shooting: "If Cheney was legally drunk at the time of the shooting, he could be guilty of a felony under Texas law and the shooting, ruled an accident by a compliant Kenedy County Sheriff, would be a prosecutable offense." (CapitiolHillBlue)

At 4:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

16 year old girls, hands chained in peaceful protest...

cops dabbing their eyes with pepper sprayed Q-tips is NOT torture?


shame on you


At 4:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey anon 3:52

Nice to hear from such a well educated good citizen as yourself.

I think that you have to have a license to get a motorcycle endorsement but it's not a special license and you don't need "special" insurance but you do need insurance. I have a motorcycle endorsement on my license. And I agree anyone that rides on the street should have the proper license, even the governor.

As for Cheney being drunk, that's just a rumor that Dem's and ignorant Toads like you want to spread!

As to the question if the cops in the Cherrie Moore shooting took a toxicology or drug/alcohol test, I don't know. But I would bet that they did. We'll know soon (the coroners inquiry).

Now you enjoy the rest of the day Toad. Maybe relax with a glass of wine, a good cigar, and the WSJ.

Glad I could set things sraight for you.

yours truly
12:37 pm

At 4:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are studies that show the higher the education level required of police officers, the lower the incidence of complaints (both accusations and verified incidents) of police brutality. Other cities in California require bachelor's degrees of officers (not merely police academy, which takes even less time then an associate degree). Why can't Eureka raise its standards of education for its police department?

At 5:31 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

They would probably have to offer more pay.

At 5:41 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Re assets forfeiture, I don't do that area of law. Ed Denson or Greg Rael would be good people to ask about it. However, my understanding is that they cannot seize your land merely because illegal activities take place on it. They must prove that the land was actually purchased or paid off with ill-gotten gains. However, what they have done is to notice a hearing after a bust. If you do not show up to oppose the forfeiture, you may end up losing the property. And of course if you do show up they drop the petition and arrest you. In other words, it's used as a tactic to flush you out of hiding.

But the law is constantly changing. And my understanding is that Giuliani institute a policy in NY City in which your vehicle is seized for merely being charged with a DUI, regardless of whether you're actually convicted. Some other locations have followed suit. I know there've been court challenges to laws like that, but I don't know the outcomes.

At 5:49 PM, Blogger saf said...

Fred, regardless of the circumstances, using pain to make some comply with your demands is torture.

At 7:28 PM, Anonymous Carol Ann Conners said...

I liked Jim Garvey's editorial. i agree with Fred that it did get a bit "convoluted" and was a bit lengthy. But Garvey is right. We all need to keep studying the U.S. Constitution. We need to keep exercising our Freedom of Speech and maintain a level of civil discourse.

At 8:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


it's called pain compliance

torture, that's to great a stretch,

what does Websters say

by that definition any time a crook fights arrests, wrestling, or whatever, that's "torture"

I think I know what saf stands for

At 8:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 4:43, can you name one city in California that requires a BA for employment as a police officer? Just one. Better yet name three ! You can't.

It's surprising to me how many people spout off on the blogs and they really don't know what they are talking about.

What was the name of that city ? Those 3 cities ?

Gee, I thought so.

At 8:34 PM, Blogger saf said...

Pain compliance is a really nice Orwellian term that easily includes torture. We're not talking about a crook fighting arrest or wrestling away. We're talking about protesters with their wrists chained together sitting on the floor of a government office. You may not agree with thier cause or tactics but that doesn't change the definition of torture.

At 8:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You've got a whole new element in this thread, Fred. Wow.

At 8:43 PM, Blogger saf said...

Since you don't seem too adept at internet searches 8:19 I'll help you out.

from -

2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

SAF= Save Ancient Forests. The answer was only a click away, but maybe you were trying to be funny.

At 9:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beverly Hills

At 9:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are we having a coroners inquiry for the Cherri Moore case if it's a police state ?

At 12:31 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

It's "pain compliance" and not torture.


That reminds me of the old SNL skit line, "It's not a gang, it's a club."

At 6:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh it's Mr. Eric the SoHum lawyer !

How would you suggest the cops arrest a resisting or assaultive criminal Eric ? Since pepper spray and pain compliance are "torture"? Say pretty please with sugar on it ?

Cmon Eric dazzle everyone with your knowledge and wit!

At 8:19 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Oh, well, that's easy. The arresting officers have the right to do what is necessary to prevent violence to themselves and others in the arrest, or to prevent the suspect's escape. Young women who are chained down simply don't qualify.

At 11:23 AM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Hmmm. Wonder who "chained" them up. The photos showed them holding hands inside metal pipes to avoid the police using bolt cutters to cut chains. Was it the "young women" who trashed the office including excrement and urine? Just wondering.

At 11:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What if the police made an arrest and the "arrestee" refused to trot off to jail?

At 1:02 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

No, they did not trash the office with excrement and urine.

anon 11;29 - if he tries to escape, they have the right to do what is reasonable to prevent it. I believe I said that.

At 1:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

cops shops down in the bay area definitely have higher standards then here, thats no secret.

At 4:09 PM, Anonymous Steve S, said...

The Plain Truth is the only ones out there that make any sense are : JERRY DROZ & NANCY FLEMMING.

At 4:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey , does anyone knoe when , Glass took a bath last ?

At 4:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No. But we do know his detractors never learned to spell.

Nice to know you spend so much time up close and personal with Larry.

At 5:42 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

You did not respond to "who chained them" or the photos of the protesters holding hands inside metal pipes. It appears there were no chains and when the discomfort of the pepper spray was applied the protest was ended. It also would seem that such illegal protests are "OK" if they are conducted by "approved groups". Can you enumerate such illegal protests by the hated "right wing"?

At 5:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not "escape" eric, just refusing to submit to arrest. What can a policeman do to affect an "arrest"? If an ordinary criminal: "whatever is necessary", if a collectivist "protester", not anything inconvenient?

At 1:12 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

AEovioao - Well, I don't know who chained them. I do know that they were nonviolent protestors. I did not say that they should not have been arrested. Typically, such protestors are arrested after the chains are cut, and charged with resistance to arrest or interfering with the duties of an officer. Torture isn't generally in the cards.

anon 555 - Depends on the situation. If the suspect can be subdued without violence, then the police should take that option. If he just goes limp, then the police are obliged to carry him. "Pain compliance" as you call it, should never be used unless the police are in physical danger.

It's really not that complicated.

At 2:06 PM, Blogger Rose said...

They chained themselves, Eric, in carefully devised metal sleeves. They came knowing what was going to happen, with videocameras. It was a PR stunt.

At 3:31 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

I don't think they knew their eyes were going to be swabbed with pepperspray. The product had never even been used that way. In fact, it violated the manufacturer's own guidelines.

It was an obnoxious method of protest to be sure, but the punishment was far out of scale for the crime.

At 4:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rose would have had them shot.

At 5:44 PM, Blogger Rose said...

No, but I believe taking advantage of the youthful idealism of teenagers is only a step away from strapping suicide vests on them and sending them out to blow themselves up. And that's what the people who used this to gain publicity for their cause did.

At 6:34 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Perhaps eric would favor more "traditional" methods of dealing with the metal pipes which were used by the "protesters" to deny ready access to the chains which they themselves had applied. Such as acetylene+oxygen? Or anon 4:46 who favors placing words in other's mouths? ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ would have opted for the "sound treatment" used to flush out Noriega from the Vatican legation in Panama but playing Joan Baez at high decibel levels.

At 7:31 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

"...but the punishment was far out of scale for the crime."

As an attorney, eric must be aware that the application of pepper spray to affect the arrests was not a "punishment". "Punishment" can only be pronounced by a magistrate. The application of the pepper spray via areosol spraying as per the manufacturer's recommendation would have engendered a risk to unintended "innocent" parties. The swab tactic was a creative effort to be as humane as possible. However no good deed goes unpunished when dealing with collectivists.

At 11:19 PM, Blogger Rose said...

It could have been handled differently. They could've waited the kids out. They would've had to go to the bathroom sooner or later. No question.

But the best response would have been to ignore them. No media. No publicity. No grand statement. And, perhaps, no repeat incidents.

At 6:52 AM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

The "protesters" were there long enough that they did experience "nature's call". They did it on the floor! We visited the office after the incident and were shown the damage by Vee Sorensen. The large stump was still there as well as the sawdust on the carpet to absorb the urine.

At 7:13 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I might add, for those that haven't seen the ENTIRE video of the incident (I have), the sheriff's deputies spent quite some time attempting verbal persuasion with the girls before pepper was used and they were warned of what actions would be taken if they didn't remove themselves from the "lock boxes". The girls knew what was coming.

The girls refused to let loose. Pepper was used and one released shortly thereafter. It didn't work that well on the others.

Nonetheless, I don't think it was excessive force. It was an escalation of the use of force applied to those who were resisiting arrest. It didn't work as well as was hoped. Oh well.

No harm done to the girls other than some temporary discomfort. If you watch the entire video, you'll see the girls sitting and talking with the deputies prior to transfer to jail. They were fine, and probably got home before any of the cops involved did.

At 12:17 PM, Blogger Rose said...

It would be nice to know who prepped the girls.
Who told them what to expect, you're going to go in and sit, they are going to do this, you will feel pain, but it will pass, just wait it out long enough for us to get it on film, then you can unlock, they'll wash your eyes out, take you to jail, we'll bail you out, it's all for the cause...

At 1:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Salzman did it.

At 11:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

wouldn't put it past him

At 11:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you know that ALL police officers that that go through California police acadamies, and carry pepper spray, get "tortured" during their training so they will know what the pepper spray feels like ?

Wow, torture. Torture is reading what some of the retards on this blog put out. (some, not all).

At 12:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I would like to touch base on all of the above and pose one question.

What would happen if we did not have any law enforcement?

I can tell you that the peaceful people that take the time to protest would not be safe in doing so. Let think about the community of Humboldt County. How many times did people protesting in front of the courthouse get “flipped off” by loggers driving by in their trucks. Without Law Enforcement, those protesters could have and would have been beaten within an inch of their lives. The only thing that stopped that from happening is the criminal repercussions that would be brought forth and carried out by Law Enforcement.

I think that it’s funny that Officers risk their lives everyday to protect the peaceful people of the community. The same people that turn around and question their tactics. I would like to see some of the people on this blog to step into the shoes of a law enforcement officer for one day. They could not do it, it takes a special type of person to work in this profession. The kind of person that would step in front of and stop the 6 foot tall 300 pound logger from pounding, the peaceful 100 pound liberal into the ground. Ask yourself if you are willing to do this for a measly $21 an hour.

We do not do this job for the money, we do it to make the community we live in a better and safer place. I am not saying that there are not bad apples in the bunch.

Lets talk about the sobriety checkpoints that are so intrusive. If a checkpoint takes one drunk driver off of the road that is going to kill YOUR family (yes YOUR family) then ask yourself, isn’t it worth it? I went through the same checkpoint twice in one night and got stopped both times. I told the officers “thank you for your time, and what you do”. It took me 10 seconds, about the same time it takes me to walk to my bathroom. If you are not drunk, then you do not have to worry about it.

I would like to sit back for one week and see what would happen to the Eureka Community, if the entire police department went on a vacation. I will tell you what would happen.

The little whiners that have the right to protest and voice their first amendment rights (I not going to go there, this time) would be beaten. You would not have to worry about asset forfeiture, because people would just steal from everybody…. I could go on for hours, but I will not, I think I got my point across.

I would like to just say one more short thing which would put things in perspective and my you be thankful that law enforcement is around.

It is 2AM and your grandmother is sound asleep and there is an intruder. It is impossible for your grandmother to defend herself. Who could she call to help her. Are you going to run over there and get involved and confront these two gentlemen…No! You are going to call the police.

So next time you see a law enforcement officer, stop and say hello and thank them for all that they do. You will find that it will go a long way.

At 9:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

with lavalle , baas , neely and wolford it seems like we have no law enforcement . after all they are the king pins of housing for low - lifes into eureka . they don't check whether or not they got a criminal history . they say.... just come into eureka , i need more grant money and i do not care how badly i foul up eureka .


Post a Comment

<< Home