Before I get this rant going, I would like to post the a
couple of the sites where I found the articles and videos:
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-michael-picard-dui-protest-arrest-20160128-story.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/conn-troopers-caught-on-video-trumping-up-charges-on-detained-men-gotta-cover-our-ass/
https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/01/26/award-winning-connecticut-cop-swipes-phone-from-man-telling-him-its-illegal-to-video-record-him-in-public/
So here we have yet another example of people with a bit of authority
confusing having limited authority with the right to ignore any rules that
govern them and impose their will on others even if is no where near justified.
The kid in this video was breaking no laws here. He was merely
exercising his first amendment rights in protesting, in a safe manner,
something he feels is wrong. As to what he is protesting, I don't
necessarily agree with him. I don't generally have a problem with DUI
checkpoints when they are used properly. He does, however, raise an
interesting point about the cost/benefit ratio of a checkpoint. In order
to address that issue properly one would have to get into the specifics of the
state budget and that is not what this rant is about.
This rant is about crooked cops. As I have never
actually met a cop who wasn't crooked, my immediate thought is: "Isn't
that a bit redundant?" In all honesty, that is not a fair question
on my part. I fully believe that there are honest cops out there, I have
never actually met one, but I am sure they are out there. It is similar
to my belief in blue whales. I have never met a blue whale but I am
reasonably sure they exist.
Now, before someone jumps up and points out that you usually
only meet cops when things are already bad, keep in mind that, in this rant, I
am including the cops that I have met in a non-professional capacity, i.e. when
they are off duty. I have even known a couple of former cops that quit
because of all the corruption. I suppose that I should give you my
criteria for classifying a cop as dirty: If you know of a crime committed
by another cop and say nothing, you are dirty. If you allow another cop
to harass a fellow citizen (remember, you are a citizen as well) you are
dirty. If you abuse the power entrusted to you in any way shape or form
or allow another cop to do the same without taking steps to stop it and make
sure it never happens again, you are dirty. And, here's a big one, if you
yourself commit a crime not required by your duties (for example undercover
cops a sometimes forced to do things to maintain their cover that would
otherwise be unacceptable), you are dirty.
And that brings us to this case. These cops committed
numerous crimes and were caught on tape doing so! The cop who falsely
claimed that it was illegal to film him even though they were on public
property, where there is no expectation of privacy, was a decorated officer!
Hell, there is a specific law on the books that “protects the
right of an individual to photograph or video record peace officers in the
performance of their duties.” (Connecticut
Bill No. 245). The cop's claim that he was on state property and not
public property holds no water. State owned roadways, at least in Connecticut , are considered
public property. Don't you think that if you are going to uphold the law,
you should probably some inkling of the laws you are supposed to be upholding?
Just a thought.
So, anyway, this officer proceeds to confiscate the
protester's camera phone. Now just out of curiosity, what would you call
it if I took something away from you with neither your permission or a legal
right to do so? Sounds a little like theft doesn't it? If you or I
did something like that, even if we fully intended to return what we took, what
do you think would happen? Think we might be charged with a crime?
It is a definite possibility.
Now let's move onto the gun that protester was carrying.
In Connecticut
it is legal to openly carry a firearm. Whether or not you think it is
morally right, the fact remains that it was not a crime. There was some
flack raised about the cop confiscating the firearm. This, I think, is one
of the few things the cops did correctly in this situation. Considering
the inherent danger that cops can face during the course of their duties, I
have no problem with them temporarily confiscating s weapon provided that they
return the weapon and the ammunition the moment the situation is resolved,
which they did. Go them!
So here is a funny bit. If the cop hadn't broken the law
and confiscated the gentleman's phone, he wouldn't have left it recording when
he set it on the roof of the cruiser to discuss falsifying charges and lying
about fake 911 calls to "...cover our ass" with his colleagues.
There is even one point during the tape where one of the cops explicitly
states that what the protester did what completely legal! Apparently
standing out of everyone's way on public property, holding a sign and complying
with all the laws of your area is legal. Well, at least the cops don't
illegally detain citizens without probable cause and make up charges to justify
their illegal actions. Oh, wait, that is exactly what they did, huh?
While the cops are over conferring on how exactly they want
to break the law that they have sworn to uphold another officer comes and
stands near the protester. Now, were it not for the deplorable conduct
thus far I wouldn't think anything of it. Given the situation and conduct
of the officer, it strikes me as more of a bullying tactic. Gee, someone
in a position of authority that is a bully, what a shock. So this guy
asks the officer several times what his name and badge number are. He was
very polite about it the multiple times he asked. Each time, the cop said
absolutely nothing. I don't know if that is illegal but is definitely a
dick move. He also asked the officer if he had read a state trooper memo
reminding all officer that openly carrying a licensed handgun is not a crime.
The officer, again, makes no response.
So eventually they decide they have had enough time to
violate their oaths and the public trust. They return his weapon and
ammunition to him advising that he conceal it so as not to upset other
citizens. I do not know the law in Connecticut
but in many states, a special license is requited to carry a concealed handgun.
If that is the case there as well, the office advised him to commit a
crime. They also presented him with two citations. Surprisingly
when asked, the officer presenting the ticket gave not only his name and badge
number but the name and badge number of the officer who refused to give his
own.
So, fast forward a bit and the protester goes to his first
court appearance and the prosecutor offers to lower the fine to $25. He
offered to lower the fine on illegal charges,
wasn't that nice of him? In what was a surprising display of integrity,
the protester refused the "generous" offer because he never actually
did anything illegal. I find this impressive. I can't say for sure
that I wouldn't have just paid the $25 to make it go away. But then it is
that sort of attitude that allows things like this to continue to occur isn't
it? Not this guy. He will now get his day in court. I hope he
not only wins but that those officers involved are fired and are sent to jail
for their crimes. You, know, the crimes that were caught on tape.
Unfortunately, I think that the far more likely outcome is
that the cops involved get off scot-free and this gets swept under the
rug. How could that happen you might
ask? The whole thing is documented on tape, right? Two words:
Rodney King. I really hope I am wrong.
Come what may, the gentleman's trial date is April 25th
2016. Good luck, for all our sakes.
Rant Over... for now
