Florida Cop Threatens To Shoot Concealed Carry Permit Holder And Arrests Him For Lawfully Carried Gun

Here is the contact information for Citrus Country Sheriff

Inverness Operations Center 352-726-4488
Inverness Civil Office 352-341-6525
Non-Emergency 352-726-1121
Emergency 911

Beverly Hills / Ridge Area 352-746-3484
Crystal River / Gulf Region 352-795-4241
Inverness Resource Office 352-726-1362

 

Administrative Offices
Sheriff Jeff Dawsy
Administrative Bureau Commander
Bob Blume
Law Enforcement Bureau Commander
Buddy Grant
Executive Assistant to Sheriff
Pam Ferguson
Executive Assistant to Commanders
Traci Beagan

Cop Tazers 10 Year Old Boy For Refusing To Wash His Car

SOURCE

SANTA FE, N.M. (CN) – A New Mexico policeman Tasered a 10-year-old child on a playground because the boy refused to clean his patrol car, the boy claims in court.
Guardian ad litem Rachel Higgins sued the New Mexico Department of Public Safety and Motor Transportation Police Officer Chris Webb on behalf of the child, in Santa Fe County Court.
Higgins claims Webb used his Taser on the boy, R.D., during a May 4 “career day” visit to Tularosa New Mexico Intermediate School.
“Defendant Webb asked the boy, R.D., in a group of boys, who would like to clean his patrol unit,” the complaint states. “A number of boys said that they would. R.D., joking, said that he did not want to clean the patrol unit.
“Defendant Webb responded by pointing his Taser at R.D. and saying, ‘Let me show you what happens to people who do not listen to the police.'”
Webb then shot “two barbs into R.D.’s chest,” the complaint states.
“Both barbs penetrated the boy’s shirt, causing the device to deliver 50,000 volts into the boy’s body.
“Defendant Webb pulled the barbs out [of] the boy’s chest, causing scarring where the barbs had entered the boy’s skin that look like cigarette burns on the boy’s chest.
“The boy, who weighed less than 100 lbs., blacked out.
“Instead of calling emergency medical personnel, Officer Webb pulled out the barbs and took the boy to the school principal’s office,” the complaint states.
Higgins says the Tasing gave the boy post-traumatic stress syndrome, and that “The boy, R.D., has woken up in the middle of the night holding his chest, afraid he is never going to wake up again.”
She adds: “No reasonable officer confronting a situation where the need for force is at its lowest, on a playground with elementary age children, would have deployed the Taser in so reckless a manner as to cause physical and psychological injury.”
She seeks punitive damages for the boy for battery, failure to render emergency medical care, excessive force, unreasonable seizure, and negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention.
Higgins and R.D. are represented by the Kennedy Law Firm, of Albuquerque.

The Sacred Cause of “Officer Safety”

SOURCE

“It’s just about being safe.”
Thus spoke Deputy Corry Bassett of the Lincoln County, Wyoming Sheriff’s Office as he struggled to justify handcuffing Robert Pierson during an August 11, 2011 traffic stop
Pierson, a Marine combat veteran, had been riding his motorcycle near Alpine when another motorist called to complain about a biker passing a number of slow-moving motor homes. Pierson was not charged with a traffic violation or a criminal offense — but he was arrested and detained in handcuffs for 45 minutes because the sight of a Mundane carrying a firearm caused Bassett to irrigate his underwear.
“I know you have a gun,” Bassett said a few seconds into the stop, which was recordedon Pierson’s cell phone. “Are you a cop?”
When Pierson indicated that he was not part of the armed revenue-extracting caste, Bassett muttered: “OK, what I’m going to do is – put your hands behind your back right now.”
As he handcuffed the compliant motorist, Bassett explained, “I don’t like someone with a gun,” while insisting, “You’re not under arrest.”
The second statement is an unalloyed lie: Whenever a police officer restrains someone, that person is under arrest. The first statement is a lie by omission: If Pierson had been a police officer, Bassett would not have complained about him carrying a gun. The category of “someone” thus applies only to Mundanes, whose very existence is seen as a threat to the unimaginably precious personages who wear state-issued costumes.
“It’s the first thing you should have told me, [that] you’ve got a gun,” simpered Bassett, whose panic-tinged voice was thrown into sharp relief by Pierson’s composure.
“Well, actually I’m not required to tell you in either Idaho or Wyoming,” Pierson correctly pointed out.
“Yes, you are,” insisted Bassett. “If you’re packing a gun, I want to know about it.”
“Well, I’m open-carrying,” Pierson observed, stating the obvious. As Bassett began a rote speech describing the sacred imperative of “officer safety,” Pierson pointed out that he had done nothing wrong or illegal, that the deputy’s safety “is not in any way in jeopardy,” and that actually “it’s not my concern.”
“It is!” yelped Bassett. “It’s my concern!”
“My only concern is my personal rights and individual liberties, which you are violating right now,” noted Pierson.
“No, I am not,” Bassett lied.
“You have me handcuffed,” Pierson reminded the increasingly petulant officer.
“I handcuffed you for [sic] number one, you did not tell me you had a gun on you, ‘kay?” Bassett groused. “You do not get off your bike and face me, and I see a weapon on you! I don’t like that!”
“You asked me if I could get off my bike, and you said `yes,’” recounted Pierson.
“I understand your concerns about search and seizure, but you have to understand one thing about where we’re at in law enforcement,” stated Bassett. “I’m asking you for my safety. I don’t know you. I don’t know your intentions.”
The same could have been said by Pierson about Bassett, who was, after all, just another armed stranger. One critical difference, of course, is that Pierson knew that Bassett’s intentions were malign: After all, the deputy had detained him, which is an act of aggression by any definition.
Recall that when Bassett noted that Pierson had a gun, his first question was: “Are you a cop?” If Pierson had been a fellow member of the Brotherhood of Official Plunder, this would have allayed Bassett’s concerns.
In fact, after noticing that Pierson carried a military ID, Bassett suggested that the detainee should see the encounter in terms of “force security” in a battle zone.
“You’re in the military,” Bassett began. “You ever been shot at? Would you like, if you roll up on somebody you have no idea who they are … wouldn’t it be a question in your mind if this person’s got weapons on them?”
Bassett, who never served in the military, clearly saw himself as part of an army of occupation – and insisted on unqualified submission to his supposed authority.
“Your safety does not trump my right and my liberty,” Pierson tutored the deputy.
“When I stop you, yes it does,” asserted Bassett.
“Your personal safety is more important than all the laws, the Constitution, and every one of my personal rights and liberties,” summarized Pierson, his voice heavy with disgusted incredulity.
“When I’m in a traffic stop, yes,” declared Bassett. “I’m in control of this situation.”
“The Constitution is in control of this situation,” Pierson rejoined.
“No – I am… and if I feel that I’m going to be threatened by the fact that you have a gun on your side, by hell I’m gonna do it,” concluded Bassett.
 
Forty-five minutes later, Deputy Rob Andazola arrived to provide “backup.” At that point, as Bassett has admitted in a sworn deposition, the deputies offered to unshackle Pierson if he allowed Andazola to draw his weapon and shoot the motorcyclist in the event he made any gesture perceived as a “threat.”

Pierson didn’t agree to those terms. Eventually a patrol supervisor reached the scene and acknowledged that the motorcyclist had done nothing wrong. Until that happened, however, Pierson was handcuffed, disarmed, and entirely at the mercy of two armed strangers who considered it their right – if not their duty – to kill him if he displayed any behavior that made them uneasy. 
 
“I didn’t know whether kicking my leg over the bike, or walking away, or what they could possibly constitute as a hostile act,” Pierson told the Associated Press. “And I was a little unnerved by the fact that they were threatening lethal force with a deadly weapon against a man who was compliant, in handcuffs, who had been screened.”

In the sacred cause of “officer safety,” no precaution is excessive, no imposition unjustified – and no constitutional “guarantee” of individual rights is binding.
Pierson’s legitimate concern for citizen safety in the presence of police is underscored by an incident that occurred near Canton, Ohio just weeks before the traffic stop in Wyoming. 
 
 

On June 8, 2011, Patrolman Daniel Harless of the Canton, Ohio Police Department, repeatedly threatened to murder the driver, William E. Bartlett, for carrying a concealed handgun for which he had obtained the appropriate permit. 

At all times, Bartlett was composed and cooperative. He made every effort to comply with the Ohio concealed carry ordinance by notifying Harless that he was carrying a weapon, and displaying his concealed carry license. He was rewarded with a profane outburst in which Harless made it clear that he was eager for a chance to kill somebody.

“As soon as I felt your gun I should have took [sic] two steps back, pulled my Glock 40 and just put 10 bullets in your ass and let you drop,” ranted Harless. “And I wouldn’t have lost any sleep.”
After threatening to “put lumps on” a witness to the incident, Harless told Bartlett, “I’m so close to caving in your f*****g head…. You’re just a stupid human being…. F*****g talking to me with a f*****g gun. You want me to pull mine and stick it to your head?”
Unlike Harless, who was obviously deranged, Bassett and Andazola did not dissolve into puddles of psychotic rage. But lurking behind their veneer of “professionalism” was a willingness to commit homicide simply because the sight of a Mundane with a firearm made them feel kind of funny. 
When contacted by Pro Libertate to comment on the case, Captain John Steztenbach of the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office explained that “Our lawyer has told us that we are to say absolutely nothing about this case. I would love nothing more that for the other side of the story to be told, and we’re very frustrated that we can’t tell it, but it’s been made clear that until this goes to court, we’re not to comment on any aspect of this case.”
Stetzenbach, a courteous and well-spoken Connecticut native, explained that the gag order applies not only to the details of Pierson’s arrest, but also to any discussion of the department’s instructions and guidelines dealing with matters of “officer safety.” After describing how he had come to the Rocky Mountain West to study at a gunsmith trade school in Colorado, Stetzenbach proclaimed that both he and the department he serves are “very pro-Second Amendment,” and promised that when the legal issues are settled he will be very eager to “tell the whole story.”
 
“It always amazes me how in situations like this, one side gets out very quickly, and it’s not ours; that’s really frustrating,” Stetzenbach complained.

In this case – as in other “situations” of its kind – the officers have themselves to blame for the fact that the public hasn’t seen “their side” of the story, since the dashcam recordings of the encounter have mysteriously disappeared. 
The victim documented the incident, and the chief assailant has confirmed all of the victim’s key assertions. Res ipsa loquitir.
In his sworn deposition (as paraphrased by the AP), Bassett admitted that he had been “trained to put his personal safety above the rights of a citizen openly carrying a handgun.”
 “We’re told every day, our safety is first,” Bassett pointed out. “We’re here to come home every night.”

Remember that admission next time you’re told that the police are here to protect and serve the public. 

US Police Can Legally Discriminate Against People With Above Average IQ

I think I have posted about this before, but it is so important I will do it again just to be sure.

SOURCE

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.

In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.

Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor’s degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ”I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,” he said. ”It’s the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.”

SOURCE

A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.

But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.

Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.