An innocent man had a seizure inside of a gas station and when police responded, they used tasers, punches, knee strikes, and baton blows on a man who needed medical attention.
The post WATCH: Cops Mistake Epileptic Man’s Seizure for a Crime So They Beat, Taser and Arrest Him appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
A Georgia state lawmaker said she didn’t want to take guns away from Americans, but she also supports legislation that would seize guns from Americans. Likely missing a dictionary and basic common sense, Erica Thomas still expects us to believe that the government isn’t coming for our guns.
During an interview with Tucker Carlson, Thomas claims to not be talking about “taking the guns from law-abiding citizens, I’m talking about a ban on assault rifles. We are not trying to promote a militia. What war are we going at that we need assault rifles?” But Carlson quotes the bill Thomas herself said she supported, which states, “The Georgia Bureau of Investigation shall seize and take possession of any assault weapon, large capacity magazine, armor piercing bullet or incendiary fifty caliber bullet.” Carlson then asks how that confiscation will be received by hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners in her state and in typical democrat fashion, can’t answer what a “seizure” of guns from law-abiding citizens who don’t want to give up their morally acquired property would look like.
Then the conversation between Carlson and Thomas eventually drifted into gun statistics, and The Daily Caller co-founder wondered why Thomas wasn’t calling for a ban on handguns since they are responsible for the majority of gun deaths in America.
“Don’t demagogue it with me. I am not downplaying the significance of anyone’s death,” Carlson asserted. “Since assault rifles, relatively speaking, cause few deaths, handguns cause the overwhelming majority of deaths, why are you not calling for banning handguns and seizing and taking possession of handguns…if you care so much about gun violence?”
Instead of answering the question, Thomas decided to turn it around on Carlson, insisting, “I would ask you the same question. Would you call for a ban on handguns? No, you wouldn’t!” she exclaimed. “So why can we not put a ban on assault rifles? That is the question. Why not?” This is what gun owners have to deal with almost daily: Overly emotional outburst from those who know next to nothing about guns and the way the work, and even less about the statistics they claim to care about changing.
After several more seconds of the pair talking over one another, Carlson finally cut Thomas’ mic and video feed, stating, “I give up, I’m trying to ask you adult questions and you don’t want to answer them.”
Democrats often wonder why we can’t have a civilized discussion about guns, and this video boldly declares the reason why. There’s little, if any, respect for facts or basic human rights when it comes to a person who wants more gun legislation. One simply cannot have a civilized discussion with anyone who seeks to erode the rights of others based on misinformation and fabricated statistics.
But Carlson presented an interesting question while Thomas was talking. “What if Americans don’t want to give up their guns?” There’s still not been a rational and logical response on how that would be handled from any Democrat; politician or otherwise.
Riverside, OH — Zack Shawhan is an epileptic. He carries medicine on his keys and a special ID card to identify himself to others when he experiences a medical episode. Until now, Shawhan has dealt with his condition, living a normal life and receiving help from others when having seizures. However, all that changed when he had a seizure and met officer Ron Reardon of the Riverside Police Department. This brutal interaction was all captured on the officer’s dashcam.
In November of last year, Shawhan had a seizure while he was driving, which caused him to have a minor fender bender. When police arrived on the scene, Shawhan was still very much in the midst of his medical emergency. However, Reardon was clearly unaware of how to deal with a person in a medical emergency — or even an accident victim for that matter.
As the video begins, the first officer to arrive on scene contacted Shawhan to see if he was okay. The first officer was a little more apt to look for a medical emergency than Reardon. Shawhan wasn’t responding to his questions and appeared to be in distress when the officer said he tried to stand up.
As Shawhan tries to stand, the first officer yanks him out of the vehicle and throws him to the ground. This officer’s response was warranted as Shawhan was in legal possession of a firearm and him not being responsive was cause for concern. The family even noted that the way the first officer responded was entirely just.
“I completely blacked out can’t talk, I just don’t have no movement,” Shawhan said of his seizure. He explained that it can take 30 minutes for him to come to after having a seizure.
READ MORE: VIDEO: Cop Brutally Attacks Innocent Disabled Man with One Hand -- Then Arrests Him
After the first officer pulled Shawhan to the ground and had him entirely under control, and in handcuffs, that’s when Reardon showed up to dish out some punishment.
“You f**ked up buddy,” says Reardon as he walks up to the restrained epileptic man in the middle of a medical emergency, grabs him by the head, and slams it into the concrete.
“The last thing you do to an accident victim is go up to them grab them by the head, twist their head and push it into the ground,” said Shawhan’s attorney Bill Daly.
“What he did was wrong there is no justification of that that is not a Police tactic, that is not a Police move you learn in the Academy,” Daly said about Reardon’s actions.
Daly is now representing the family in a lawsuit against the Riverside police department seeking payment for the legal fees the family has incurred as a result of Reardon’s actions. Because the officers considered Shawhan’s lack of response to their commands ‘resisting’, they charged him with a crime. The family’s attorney is also asking for these charges to be dropped.
The person who is actually guilty of committing a crime, which was subsequently recorded on video, is officer Reardon. However, because police can attack and assault innocent people with impunity, Reardon will not be charged with a crime. Instead, he was ‘punished’ with a vacation.
According to a statement from the department, Reardon received a whopping 3-day suspension and nothing else.
Officer Reardon was placed on Administrative leave as soon as the incident was reviewed. A criminal investigation was done by BCI, a Special Prosecutor was brought in to review the case. An internal investigation was launched as soon as the criminal investigation was completed. No charges were filed and Officer Reardon was suspended for 3 days for policy violations.
To be clear, if an average citizen walked up to a man on the street — regardless of the seizure, medical emergency, or handcuffs — and slammed their head into the pavement, they would most certainly be charged with a crime. However, if your job is to ostensibly ‘protect’ society, you can do this and face no accountability.
READ MORE: Disturbing Video Shows Cops Taser & Choke Innocent Man — To Death
Sadly, this brutal response by police to those in medical emergencies is not all that uncommon.
In September of last year, the Free Thought Project brought you the story of two Oklahoma state troopers who mistook a man’s medical emergency for a crime. So, they dragged him from his vehicle and gave him a gang-style beating.
Before that assault, another man was beaten and assaulted by a brutally ignorant officer. On May 4th, 2015, David Washington was driving his car down Route 1 near the University of Mary Washington when he experienced a medical emergency. The emergency caused him to black out, hit a jeep, and cross over the median striking a road sign.
The driver of the jeep called 911 to report the crash and officer Shaun Jergens arrived on the scene. Body cam footage shows that Jergens cared not about the man in obvious medical distress.
As Jergens approached the car, the distressed and barely responsive Washington was blasted pepper-sprayed and tasered.
“Get out the car or I’m going to fucking smoke you,” says Jergens after assaulting Washington.
Jergens then dragged the sick man out of his car and continued his assault by laying him on the hot asphalt. As if being pepper-sprayed, tasered, thrown on the ground and handcuffed wasn’t enough, police allowed the car to roll on top of Washington’s foot.
No charges have been filed against Jergens for his abuse. None of the officers involved face charges for failing to stop this assault either. However, Washington was charged with hit-and-run, hit-and-run (property damage), reckless driving, and driving on a revoked or suspended license.
READ MORE: Cop Gets 4 Years for Tasering and Beating Teen into a Coma, for Asserting his Rights During Stop
This article was written by Jack Burns and originally published at The Free Thought Project.
Editor’s Comment: The state has turned its people into serfs once again, and through petty fines and regulations, everyone has once again come under the thumb. For the corporeally liberated, it is primarily a form of debt servitude, but for the poorest, who have nothing left to lose, it can mean jail time, sometimes for literally nothing more than getting caught up in a system of bureaucracy and unable to fork over more and more money for the process.
Town Busted Running “Debtor’s Prison” Must Pay $680K, Sheriff Told to Resign
by Jack Burns
Alexander, AL — The Southern Poverty Law Center has reached a $680,000 settlement in its lawsuit against the Alabama city of Alexander and its police chief Willie Robinson. The settlement was for depriving 190 of its residents their rights to due process (6th Amendment) and the unlawful seizure of their property (4th Amendment). Sheriff Robinson has even been asked to resign by lawyers representing their client.
Each one of the 190 individuals will receive $500 cash from the city for jailing them for being too poor to pay the fines imposed on them by the town. As reported by AL.com, “Hundreds of impoverished residents have faced unconstitutional and unjust treatment in Alexander City simply because they were too poor to pay fines and fees,” said Sam Brooke, in a press release. Brooke is the SPLC’s deputy legal director. He added, “The shuttering of this modern-day debtors’ prison, along with the monetary award, brings justice to many of the people who were unfairly targeted for being poor.”
The way the injustice flourished was as follows. A resident would receive a speeding ticket, for example. If they were unable to pay, they were arrested, taken to jail, and forced to remain there. While in jail, they would earn $20 a day for just being in jail, and $40 a day for doing laundry, cleaning, or washing police cruisers, until the total sum of the fine was paid in full. Each person was not allowed to go before a judge, nor to have a lawyer present to help in aid in their defense.
“Around 30 percent of Alexander inhabitants live below the poverty line. Plaintiff Amanda Underwood is one such person, who was jailed twice for not being able to pay her fines. Underwood previously earned $8 an hour and has two young children, according to the SPLC release. After not being able to pay a fine of $205 for a traffic violation, Underwood had to borrow money to secure her release. On a separate occasion, Underwood was fined $250 for driving without a license. She spent five days in jail working off her debt.”
What may have seemed like a quick way for the town to punish offenders — and settle long-standing fines, fees, and court costs — turned out to be a complete violation of Alexander’s residents’ civil rights. Underwood reveled in the victory saying, “I am glad the city is going to pay everyone who they jailed, to try to undo some of the harm they caused…I am so proud that this lawsuit has made a difference. I hope it will help many others, especially those like me who have been unfairly punished for being poor.”
Brooke said Alexander’s settlement out of court is just the latest in a string of successful lawsuits in Alabama which have made a positive impact on civil rights. “Courts are being sued and forced to change their procedures, and judges have been censured and suspended,” Brooke said. “And now a municipality has been forced to pay those it illegally jailed. We hope and believe all courts are now getting the message: It is unacceptable to punish the poor just because of their poverty.”
There’s very little difference between jailing someone to work off a fine, and selling one’s property to pay for such fines. One is a debtor’s prison and the other results in a debtor’s auction. In both cases, the police benefit from free labor and free revenue generation. Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF) has been used for years to punish citizens accused of crimes such as drunk driving, driving with too much cash on hand, or being in possession of marijuana. Hopefully, with wins such as what the SPLC has been able to achieve in Alabama, more progress can likewise be made in CAF cases across the country as well.
This article was written by Jack Burns and originally published at The Free Thought Project.
Please Spread The Word And Share This Post
Author: Jack Burns
Views: Read by 136 people
Date: March 16th, 2017
Website: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sheriff-town-pay-debtors-prison/
Copyright Information: This content has been contributed to SHTFplan by a third-party or has been republished with permission from the author. Please contact the author directly for republishing information.
A disturbing and reckless precedent was just set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit which held that the US Constitution does not necessarily require cops to stop a K9 from tearing an innocent person to shreds. Seriously.
According to the ruling in the case of an innocent homeless man being mauled, nearly to death by a K9, police officers who deliberately allow their K9 to maul innocent people will be immune from liability and victims will have zero recourse.
As Slate reports:
The grisly facts of the case are uncontested. One night in 2010, Officer Terence Garrison and his police dog, Bikkel, were tracking a robbery suspect in High Point, North Carolina. Bikkel led Garrison to an abandoned house, then attacked a man crouched behind a bush near the front stoop. Garrison quickly realized that the man did not match the physical description of the suspect. (In fact, he was Christopher Maney, a homeless man accused of no crime.) But Garrison decided that the man might still be dangerous, so he demanded that Maney show his hands before calling off Bikkel. But Maney was using his hands to try to protect himself against the dog and pleaded with Garrison to stop Bikkel’s attack, insisting that he had done nothing wrong. After allowing the mauling to continue for 10 seconds, Garrison finally told Bikkel to stop. He then put Maney in handcuffs and called medical support.
Because Garrison allowed his K9 to continue mauling Maney, the innocent homeless man suffered severe injuries. By the time he was brought to the hospital, Maney was in critical condition. Bikkel had torn apart the top of Maney’s head, removing an entire two-square-inch section of hair, skin, and tissue — which would later require a 16-inch skin graft. The dog also bit Maney’s arms and legs so severely that it led to a brachial artery blood clot with massive blood loss, bruising, and swelling.
READ MORE: Since Oklahoma Legalized Cannabis Oil, These Two Children Have Been Seizure Free
After making a long and painful recovery, Maney attempted to hold the officer accountable for his sadistic and torturous act. He then sued Garrison for violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures.
As it stands, a dog bite qualifies as a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. So, Maney argued that the time Garrison allowed the K9 to rip him apart was unreasonable.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit did not agree. Insanely enough, the court concluded that Garrison was shielded from liability because he did not violate a “clearly established” constitutional right.
According to the majority, as Slate reports, Fourth Amendment precedents do not unambiguously prohibit officers from “prolong[ing] a dog bite seizure until a subject complies with orders to surrender.” The majority analogized the mauling to a “Terry stop,” during which an officer may briefly stop and frisk individuals on the basis of “reasonable suspicion.” Garrison, the majority concluded, had really just engaged in a type of Terry stop in which “the classic Terry tableau is replaced by something more dynamic.”
Simply put, the court ruled that Garrison’s use of his K9 to maul a man nearly to death, was reasonable because it is no different than a stop and frisk.
Judge Pamela Harris, the only judge with enough humanity left in her to dissent, explained why this ruling is nonsensical and disturbing.
Maney was not himself suspected of any crime, armed or not, and he did not attempt to flee or to resist. Nevertheless, Officer Garrison deliberately subjected him to a canine attack in order to rule out any possibility that he might pose a threat. Whether or not a more customary Terry stop might have been authorized, I think it is clear enough that the circumstances did not justify the sustained mauling of Maney. Clear enough, that is, to warrant denial of qualified immunity to Garrison on Maney’s excessive force claim.
Harris noted that justifying the mauling by comparing it to a Terry stop was particularly ludicrous because “there was not reasonable suspicion sufficient to support a Terry stop” in the first place.
READ MORE: HUGE VICTORY! Federal Court Bans Govt from Prosecuting Medical Pot Users and Growers
He (Garrison) was aware that there was a perfectly innocent explanation for Maney’s presence near the abandoned house. And I would not count against Maney his failure to stand and identify himself, which Maney—quite reasonably, in hindsight—attributes to his fear that a sudden movement might prompt a dog attack. Citizens are under no free-standing obligation to identify themselves to the police.
While Harris disagreed, the rest of the court believed Garrison “intentionally prolong(ing) a violent assault on Maney to determine whether he might pose a threat,” is entirely just.
It is likely that Maney will appeal this ruling. However, the mere fact that a court would rule in such a manner illustrates a much larger problem in America. Because Americans support a system that continuously refuses to hold police accountable while simultaneously granting them special privileges, cops can quite literally get away with murder.
This article was written by Shaun Bradley and originally published at The Anti-Media.org.
Editor’s Comment: These days, it might not take as much as you think to rack up $50k in back taxes. If you do, forget about legally traveling anywhere outside the country. With a barrage of headlines about the travel ban against Muslims, the IRS has motioned the new administration to quietly give teeth to its travel ban as well. The IRS ban, however, is targeted against American citizens – and with a determination by the agency that you are liable for a large tax debt, your rights to travel can be revoked without due process, official charge or even consideration by a judge.
Frozen, denied, unauthorized and grounded from whatever plane you thought you might catch. The fact is, that while attempts to control immigration are sorely needed, the heavy police state approach is likely to have some severe blowback – starting with even tighter security at airports and transportation centers. Biometrics and fingerprints are being implemented now, and may soon require all persons – including American citizens – exiting or entering the country to submit fingerprint, all ten digits even. This is a drastic violation of civil liberties, and a dangerous atmosphere to take hold. While many cheered on a reform of the system, and a tough approach to the country’s biggest problems, no one wanted a return to the George W. Bush era of security and brainwashing every time 9/11 is mentioned… no one wants anything close to that. People must demand their freedom, and make wise avoidance of the system of monitoring, tracking and enslavement.
The New Travel Ban You Didn’t Hear About Is Against U.S. Citizens
by Shaun Bradley
As emotions intensify over Trump’s recent immigration ban, the State Department and IRS have quietly used it as a smokescreen to roll out a new policy that targets U.S. citizens for unpaid taxes.
The passports of these individuals can now be revoked and their citizenship status undermined at the behest of one of the government’s most corrupt agencies. By granting the Internal Revenue Service control over passports, due process has been significantly undermined. The shield of protection that U.S. citizenship used to represent has transformed into an inescapable brand of ownership. The desperate financial condition of the federal government will only worsen in the future, forcing it to further consume its own people’s wealth in order to survive.
The new program is set to be implemented over the next few months, and currently only those with ‘seriously delinquent tax debt’ are in the crosshairs. An individual must have $50,000 worth of tax debt to be subject to revocation, but that number can easily be adjusted downward in the future. Once identified by the IRS, a certification is sent to the State Department to begin the process. The taxpayer is then informed of the action taken against them, but any recourse from there is extremely limited. This policy blatantly targets citizens living outside of the country who may not have filed with the IRS while earning an income abroad.
The United States is one of only two countries in the world that entitles itself to tax citizens while they work in other countries. These regulations were bolstered by FACTA legislation, which requires all foreign financial institutions to report account information on Americans. The additional risks that come with having to deal directly with the U.S. government have led many foreign banks to deny American clients altogether.
As society progresses into the next age of authoritarianism, it’s clear that control over travel is going to play a key role in the power structure. The National ID is just one sign of the changing tide and will require federal identification instead of a state driver’s license to travel. These new cards would establish a kind of ‘domestic passport’ system that would open the door to serious abuses against law-abiding citizens. The consolidation of authority into agencies like the TSA and IRS should act as a canary in the coal mine to those worried about the suppression of their freedom of movement.
The ACLU has come out strongly against this kind of control grid being established:
“Americans have long had a visceral aversion to building a society in which the authorities could act like totalitarian sentries and demand ‘your papers please!’ And that everyday intrusiveness would be conjoined with the full power of modern computer and database technology. When a police officer or security guard scans your ID card with his pocket bar-code reader, for example, will a permanent record be created of that check, including the time and your location? How long before office buildings, doctors’ offices, gas stations, highway tolls, subways and buses incorporate the ID card into their security or payment systems for greater efficiency? The end result could be a nation where citizens’ movements inside their own country are monitored and recorded through these ‘internal passports.’”
Considering all of this, the implications of Trump’s border wall should start to appear more sinister than ever to individual freedom. In the years to come, the wall could just as easily be used to keep people in rather than out.
When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot , come in & out, especially for reasons of safety &.security – big trouble!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017
The pride that used to be associated with American citizenship created a country of opportunity for those willing to work hard, but now that pride has been replaced with a ball and chain that drags down the prosperity of those hindered by it. Tax evasion is seen by many as a crime deserving of severe punishment, but the hypocrisy of a nation like the United States claiming the moral high ground is laughable. Those who can distance themselves from the jurisdiction of bureaucrats in Washington should do so as soon as possible. America is starting to resemble the Titanic, and there aren’t enough lifeboats for the passengers. The objective now should be to avoid being pulled under the water when the $20 trillion debt bubble implodes.
This article was written by Shaun Bradley and originally published at The Anti-Media.org.
Please Spread The Word And Share This Post
Author: Shaun Bradley
Views: Read by 180 people
Date: February 7th, 2017
Website: http://theantimedia.org/irs-travel-ban-us-citizens/
Copyright Information: This content has been contributed to SHTFplan by a third-party or has been republished with permission from the author. Please contact the author directly for republishing information.
(ZHE) Update: according to US officials cited by Reuters, the unmanned vehicle was seized unlawfully by China. A Reuters official also adds that “the UUV was lawfully conducting a military survey in the waters of the South China Sea,” the official said. “It’s a sovereign immune vessel, clearly marked in English not to be removed from the water – that it was U.S. property.”
The incident, the first of its kind in recent memory, took place on Dec. 15 northwest of Subic Bay off the Philippines just as the USNS Bowditch, an oceanographic survey ship, was about to retrieve the unmanned, underwater vehicle (UUV), the official told Reuters.
The Pentagon later confirmed the incident at a news briefing. It said the drone used commercially available technology and sold for about $150,000.
The Pentagon views China’s seizure seriously since it had effectively taken U.S. military property.
“It is ours, and it is clearly marked as ours and we would like it back. And we would like this not to happen again,” Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said.
The seizure by the Chinese Navy will add to concerns about China’s growing military presence and aggressive posture in the disputed South China Sea, including its militarization of maritime outposts. A U.S. think tank this week said new satellite imagery indicated China has installed weapons, including anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems, on all seven artificial islands it has built in the South China Sea.
Mira Rapp-Hooper, a senior fellow in the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, said China would have a hard time explaining its actions. “This move, if accurately reported, is highly escalatory, and it is hard to see how Beijing will justify it legally,” Rapp-Hooper said.
* * *
The escalating, so far mostly verbal conflict with China may have just heated up following a Reuters reports that China has seized an unmanned, underwater US navy vehicle inside off international waters in the South China Sea, and that the US has issued a formal statement demanding the return of the vehicle.
According to CNN, which has a slightly different take on events, a US oceanographic vessel Thursday had its underwater drone stolen by a Chinese warship literally right in front of the eyes of the American crew.
In the latest encounter in international waters in the South China Sea region, the USNS Bowditch was sailing about 100 miles off the port at Subic Bay when the incident occurred, according to the official.
The Bowditch (T-AGS 62) is a Pathfinder class oceanographic survey ship, a third ship in the class. The USNS Bowditch is a part of a 29 ship Special Mission Ship program and operates in the South China Sea. She is named after Nathaniel Bowditch. Bowditch was engaged in surveying at Tacloban shortly after typhoon Haiyan in advance of the Navy’s Operation Damayan in an area known for its shifting hazards to navigation using its multi-beam contour mapping system.
Bowditch had stopped in the water to pick up two underwater drones. At that point a Chinese naval ship that had been shadowing the Bowditch put a small boat into the water. That small boat came up alongside and the Chinese crew took one of the drones.
The US got no answer from the Chinese on the radio when it said the drone was American property, the official said cited by CNN. More details:
As they turned away, the Chinese did come up on the radio and indicated they were returning to their own operations.
US oceanographic research vessels are often followed in the water under the assumption they are spying. In this case, however, the drone was simply measuring ocean conditions, the official said.
The Pentagon has not officially commented on the incident.
Although it’s unclear what the motivation was for the Chinese, the seizing of the drone comes on the heels of other provocative incidents that have happened since President-elect Donald Trump received a congratulatory call with Taiwan’s President, a violation of the US’s agreement with China’s “One China policy”. China publicly voiced their disapproval of that incident and contacted the White House at the time.
This “seizure” takes place one day after China’s influential state-run tabloid, the Global Times, called for a plan to take Taiwan by force and make swift preparations for a military incursion. The article urged China to rebalance its stance towards Taiwan to “make the use of force as a main option” and carefully prepare for possible moves toward independence.
It also follows a series of warnings to the Trump administration by Chinese diplomats, in which they cautioned that China will not allow the “One China” policy to be used as a bargaining chip, something Trump hinted he was willing to do in a Fox News interview last Sunday.
This article (China Seizes Unmanned, Underwater US Navy Vehicle Off South China Sea) by Tyler Durden originally appeared on ZeroHedge.com and was used with permission. Tune in! Anti-Media Radio airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: edits@theantimedia.org.
