Notice to all those who work in and/or for the UNITED STATES corporation Government and those who carry badges
You are aiding and abetting the enemy known as the B.A.R. association!
Be warned !
You will face the wrath of the people you have assisted the enemy in oppressing!
~We the people
Des Moines, Iowa police officer Cody Grimes, a fired police officer with a history of brutality and abuse, has had his job reinstated. He was fired in December of 2013 for domestic abuse that caused injury and fourth degree criminal mischief.
At the time, his superiors said he was fired because he
â€œviolated the departmentâ€™s policies on standards of conduct and obedience to laws and orders.â€
During the domestic dispute, he
â€œchoked his former girlfriend, threw her down the stairs of his Des Moines house and then threw her in his kitchen after she threatened to report him. That caused her to hit her head and hand.â€
At his court date in May of 2014 (until which he was on paid leave), he plead guilty to the lesser charge of criminal mischief, avoiding jail time and paying $1,000 instead. Prosecutors dropped the domestic abuse charge but he was ordered to take a class on abuse.
Today, the Des Moines Civil Service Commission, as expected, reinstated his job, saying firing was too severe a punishment. Some would argue, however, that it was not severe enough. In addition to domestic abuse, Grimes had a history of professional abuse which the commission acknowledged as it gave him back his job. It openly stated he was fired previously for
â€œmisconduct and prior discipline for excessive force.â€
In 2010 he shot at a photojournalist from KCCI-TV and was put on paid leave for two weeks. He claims he thought the photojournalist was a suspect and no charges were filed. In 2011, he punched a restrained man so hard he broke bones in his face. It was John Twomblyâ€™s wedding day when he allegedly got in a fight that Grimes inserted himself into. Twombly was found not guilty on related charges and the other manâ€™s charges were dropped. Grimes was cleared of any wrong doing in his department but Twombly was eventually awarded $75,000 from the city.
Grimesâ€™ case in particular demonstrates a painful reality: there are always multiple avenues for the state to help police abuse citizens. Usually, police refuse to reprimand officers and charges are rarely pressed by the justice system or the city (the Department of Justice just declined to charge Darren Wilson with civil rights violations). Aside from Grimes, the city of Des Moines resinstated the job of another officer fired for excessive force, but he never took back his job because he was convicted by a federal jury of violating civil rights and obstructing justice.
In the case of Grimes, the police department (in a rare showing) attempted to deal with him but was overrun by the city itselfâ€“in spite of the fact that he cost it $75,000 in damages (and thousands more in paid leave).
This is not the only chunk of $75,000 the violent officer is costing the city. Now that he has is job back, he has received a raise. Whereas he used to make $68,500 a year, he now will earn $73,000.
Before he can have his job back, he will undergo a one to two week training to reacclimate. Sgt. Jason Halifax explained
â€œHe will be required to complete some refresher training as is typical for officers who are gone for an extended time.â€
There were no known conditions given for Grimes rehiring, meaning that if he commits another act of abuse, there is no guarantee he will be permanently fired.
Posted by Popeye at 10:52 AM 1 comments
New Bill Would Let Cops Enter Your Home without a Warrant and Kill Your Dog.....
New Bill Would Let Cops Enter Your Home without a Warrant and Kill Your Dog.....
In light of recent events, itâ€™s become apparent that the publicâ€™s opinion of law enforcement is rapidly falling apart. Technology is partly to blame for giving the average citizen the ability to film police encounters at a momentâ€™s notice, and post these videos on the internet for the world to see. Thereâ€™s always been bad cops, but now their antics are being exposed now more than ever.
New Bill Would Let Cops Enter Your Home without a Warrant and Kill Your Dog
Of course, thatâ€™s not even the half of it. The police wouldnâ€™t get any bad exposure if they werenâ€™t caught doing terrible things in the first place. A cursory look through a Facebook group like Copblock will give you page after page of cops being stupid, trigger happy, petty, and negligent (and those are just the links gathered from the last 24 hours).
But I donâ€™t think anything has sullied the reputation of American law enforcement more than their propensity for killing dogs. For most dog owners, their pets are members of the family. They treat them like their children. To walk onto someoneâ€™s property and shoot their dog, is like shooting their kid. And yet these cases are rarely, if ever, brought to court. Itâ€™s hard enough to convict a cop for murder. To the courts, reprimanding them for killing a dog would be laughable.
A recent bill being proposed in Mississipi may make it even more difficult to hold the police accountable for these crimes. Specifically, if that dog is a pit bull. If this legislation passes, then anyone in the State of Mississipi who owns a pit bull may have their homes searched by the police without a warrant.
Dubbed, the Mississippi Regulation of Dangerous Dogs Act, it also grants police permission to kill your dog if certain criteria are met. If the dog is not â€œunder proper restraint when on the premises of its owner,â€ isnâ€™t wearing any vaccination tags, and if the police have failed to peacefully subdue the dog, then they would have every right to shoot.
I think the first category is the most egregious. What exactly is their definition of â€œproper restraint?â€ And more importantly, what does this mean for dog owners who donâ€™t keep their pets on a leash in their backyard? I mean, how many of you reading this are dog owners, who keep their dogs kenneled or leashed at all times? Iâ€™m sure some folks do, but unless your dog has a reputation for being violent or escaping, then doing so sounds kind of cruel. Leashes are for going on walks and kennels are for going to the vet or the dog park. They shouldnâ€™t be necessary on your own property.
Theyâ€™re basically saying that if you own a certain kind of dog, they have every right to enter your property, which practically guarantees that the police will have an encounter with your dog. And since most dog owners donâ€™t keep their pets restrained at all times, it practically guarantees that your dog will be killed by the police. This bill should be called â€œThe Mississipi Kill All Pit Bulls Actâ€, but obviously that wouldnâ€™t go over to well with the public. So theyâ€™re hiding their intentions behind a facade of safety and benevolence.
And donâ€™t get me started on the whole pit bull debate. I donâ€™t believe for a second that a certain breed of dog is more prone to killing people than another breed. Iâ€™m sure there are certain breeds that are easier to train for that (like, I donâ€™t know, maybe the German Sheperds the police use), but pit bulls donâ€™t just attack people for no reason (at least no more than any other dog). My brother has owned a pit bull for about 5 years, and that dog has never attacked anyone. So to me, saying a domesticated dog breed is more likely to attack someone, is like saying Asians are good at math, or Africans or inferior.
When this flawed logic is applied to humans, we rightfully call it racism. When itâ€™s applied to dogs, we start treating each breed like theyâ€™re separate species. We forget that all domesticated dogs are from the same species (Canis lupus familiaris), and their differences are marginal at best.
Granted, each breed has some slightly different genes, which makes them better suited for certain tasks, but we have the same thing with humans. Like people from Nepal who can live with less oxygen, or how Europeans are better at digesting dairy than Asians or Africans. But no sane person believes that certain human races are more prone to violence because of their genetics. This whole debate on the aggression of pit bulls is completely asinine.
So what we have here is a piece of legislation that is designed to violate the rights of law abiding citizens, gives police permission to kill their dogs without provocation, and is based on an argument that is more akin to an urban myth.
In my mind, this reveals the lynchpin of police stateâ€™s strategy to take away our rights. When they fail to take away our collective rights in one fell swoop, they will try to widdle them away by criminalizing every community, every opinion, and every activity, one at a time, until theyâ€™ve captured us all. Someday everyone will be a criminal, if they arenâ€™t already.
And when that day comes, theyâ€™ll be at liberty to pick and choose who goes to jail, and who gets to enjoy the illusion of freedom and privacy. Welcome to the new America.