TheAgitator.com
That’ll Teach Her for Thinking We’re Thugs
Wednesday, October 15th, 2008How not to handle your critics:
The ACLU filed the case on April 18, 2006, on behalf of Karen J. Kilpatrick, who claimed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) violated her Free Speech rights.
Kilpatrick was driving her blue van in Pensacola on April 19, 2004, with the slogans “Remember the Children of Waco” and “Boo ATF” written on some of the windows when she was pulled over by police for questioning by the ATF.
The ACLU argues in the lawsuit that her First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure were violated when officers detained her for an hour, searched her car without consent, and ordered her to remove the writing on the side of her van.
That’ll teach her!
It actually sounds like a pretty clear case in her favor, actually.
The 911 recording is priceless.
(paraphrasing)
911 operator: Do you think she poses a danger to officers [because she criticized BATFE]?
BATFE goon: Well . . . yeah!
When your only tool is a hammer, everyone looks like a nail.
Someone remind me….when do the mandatory “goose stepping” classes and boot licking classes start?
I’d hate to see the CIA’s reaction to someone with a “No More Gitmo” sticker.
Go for it, Josh! You might win an all-expenses-paid guided tour of Gitmo, handcuffs, leg-irons and blindfold included!
While I agree the ATF are a bunch of heavy handed goons, I wonder if they really DID have a reason. From the judgement:
Plaintiff came to the attention of Defendant Craig W. Roegner, a Special Agent employed in the ATF office in Pensacola, when an FBI agent had noticed the van enter and drive about the parking lot of a building housing various federal offices, including the ATF and FBI. Earlier that day, ATF also received information from an individual who claimed to have been assaulted and threatened
by a person driving a blue van who allegedly “had links” with the Branch Davidian Church.
If she really did drive around in a federal office parking lot (not the public streets), then there may be trespass issues. Also, if there was an assault and a vehicle description matches said vehicle, the police should stop and question the person. I am not a lawyer, but that seems to make sense.
The search of vehicle seems unfounded, unless the concern was a threat to the ATF offices (thinking OKC here), which might garner the need to search. I do wonder why the ATF was directly involved and not just the local police….
Mike: thanks for the other perspective. Of course, its also entirely possible that they just MADE STUFF UP.
If she had “links” to the Branch Davidians, where are they? What evidence has the government presented to support these “alleged links?”
None. They pulled such allegations directly out of their asses and lied to the locals so that they would pull her over. Instead of investigating a potential threat, they jumped right to intimidation, which is a lot more fun if you’re a jack booted government thug that thinks they’re immune from legal recourse.
Of interest to those have or are thinking about begging the government for their right to carry a gun, the thugs also claimed that they had probable cause for the search simply because she had a legal gun permit.
Nor does it say why she was in the federal parking lot. A lot of those federal buildings have places an ordinary person would need to go, like a Social Security office.
If they thought the van was a bomb, they should have called the bomb squad. Just looking through the windows of the van is more than enough to know whether it’s carrying a bomb large enough to damage the surrounding buildings.
I love the claim of an individual who was assaulted by someone in a blue van by someone else who “had links” to yet someone else. It might have been the lady’s brother’s friend’s wife’s cousin who did it.
And in their brilliance, they had a very distinguishable, easy to spot and track vehicle, and promptly made her remove all the markings that would have made it stand out like a sore thumb making it probably look like 100,000 other vans.
Perhaps she was delivering a Pizza to a federal office? There seem like there are lots of reasons to go into a federal parking lot. Unless she was in a lot marked for federal employees only (and they knew she wasn’t a federal employee) It seems like they would have a hard time justifying the stop.
Further if as it is said they asked her to remove the “Boo ATF” that sortof blows any other reason for stoping her out of the water. If they hadn’t asked her to remove the speech I may be inclined to believe that they were looking for a blue van for other reasons, but by asking her to remove it it seems like that was the primary reason. Even had they found a bomb in her van it would still be a violation of her rights to ask her to remove the writing.
If they had any evidence indicating Kilpatrick or her vehicle was a threat to “officer safety” they probably would have sent the SWAT team and had some real fun with her.
Not saying what they did was 100% right. Protesters typically are not allowed in the parking lots, as they are considered private property, regardless of who is actually IN the building. I am open to be wrong on this, but police only need a suspicion. If she had just been driving up and down in the street in front of the building, I would have to agree that there should be no suspicion. But after having driven in the parking lot (which does not seem to be in dispute by the plantiff) of the place, reasonable suspicion would seem to be there. If she had a Pizza Hut sign on her van instead, then there would have been no suspicion, in my view. But she didn’t.
Now, an hour of detention is ridiculous. The involvement of the ATF directly is very hard to swallow. However, the initial stop and possibly the search of the vehicle does not seem too unreasonable based soley on the information gleaned from the court document, which presents the plantiffs information. The differences between the two parties in the case seem to be what the officers said and how they treated the lady.
That’s an interesting theory: federal property as private property.
Conventional wisdom would place federal property as public property.
It should be obvious from recent events just how private federal property actually is.
Hint: no one here is a member of THAT club.
More on this at sayuncle, including more background from someone claiming to be her neighbor in the comments:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/10/03/aclu-v-atf/
If so, it makes a little more sense.
“She was indeed driving around town with the bumper stickers ~ we were all used to them ~ but on April 19th, she’d been slowly driving around the federal Building downtown, over and over again, while screaming out the window and/or honking the horn.”
I don’t know if it’s true or not. Also, this lady does have a David Koresh connection, read through the complaint, or search the internet. For instance:
http://www.saf.org/journal/6_Blackman.htm
“The BATF approached Koresh’s gun dealer, Henry McMahon, and his partner Karen Kilpatrick, on March 1. They were interviewed in Florida, and later kept away from home for about two weeks, constantly admonished not to talk to the press or to the FBI.”
So, she’s not just some random person.
Still, what happened is inexcusable and needs to be punished. As someone else said, if they thought she was a threat, they would have brought in the swat team. If they’re just trying to harass her, they’ll pull her over and keep her for an hour.
“Even had they found a bomb in her van it would still be a violation of her rights to ask her to remove the writing.”
You forgot, “In my opinion,” Mike. “Rights” in practice are what the government decides you have. Remember, not only is the Constitution just “a goddamned piece of paper,” it is subject to interpretation. It is the interpretation of the ruling class that determines what “rights” you have — in practice, of course, not theory, which is all that matters.
No, there needs to be–at the very least–a “reasonable, articulable” suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. It must be particularly stronger than a hunch, and it must include as its bases verifiable facts.
Even if such suspicion were there, that would only permit a brief stop, not a full blown detainment/arrest. That requires probable cause (that the detainee committed a crime), of which there is a decided absence here. Even given the supposed “confidential informant” statement regarding a potential link to the Branch Davidians, that is not evidence whatsoever of a bomb or other contraband in the vehicle such that a warrantless search is reasonable.
Most of the time, the simplest explanation is the correct one. Such is the case here: ATF guys didn’t like what she had written on the van, and decided she needed to learn some respect.
I’m just surprised she wasn’t tasered and charged with assault on an officer…
The only good think I have to say about the ATF in this case is that at least they didn’t trump up a charge.
Ogre: you forgot the dog shooting. ATF was probably pissed that she didnt have a chihuahua that “lunged at the officer”
qwints: in some sense they didnt trump up a charge. In another sense, they did, by forcing her to remove her protest signs. They went straight to the remedy/punishment, and avoided charging, trial, conviction: y’know, all that “DUE PROCESS” stuff. Why bother charging someone if you can just go straight to punishment?
They didn’t force her to remove the signs, she caved into their thug intimidation and did it herself. Unfortunately most people will cave, put the stuff back up later, and then complain later. People need to learn to stand up for their rights, no matter how scary it may be.
Here’s a silly idea about being in a federal parking lot: unless it has restricted access (whether via security or posted signs), a person can drive around all they want. Unusual? Yes. Illegal? No. Being different doesn’t make one guilty … I argue the opposite that being the same as everyone else is a sign of something being wrong.
Federal property = public property? Yeah, that’s what I thought, too. Until someone backed into my wife’s car in the parking lot of a post office during business hours. My initial thought was the cop filling out the report was just a lazy dumbass who didn’t want to be involved. I stand by that opinion for other reasons. My logic that a post office = federal property and is NOT private property went largely ignored. The point became moot when the insurances settled, so I still don’t know.
If she was in the parking lot during non-business hours, I can understand getting confronted. Back in the days when cops didn’t have to have a minimum amount of testosterone to qualify for being on the force, they would ask if you were lost or having car trouble, etc. But this whole thing smacks of retaliation for anti-authority bumperstickers. Would have been the same or maybe worse if she had a “legalize weed” bumpersticker.
This website kind of cracks me up. So many of the people here assume we still have rights. We don’t. Get over it.
I think you might want to re-read “Cynical in CA”’s post. I cannot understand the negative votes on it. The only “rights” you have are those your local government (the territory you are in) says you have and actually enforce. Or, another way of putting it is the only right you have is that which you (or “your” government) can enforce.
Example: As the deposed king of Canada, I claim a right to all maple syrup. (Doesn’t pass the test)
Example: I have a right to not get eaten by a bear after smearing my body in bacon fat and hugging it’s cub. (Doesn’t pass the test)
The universe (cold and unyeilding as it is) still refuses to establish rights in any press statement I’ve seen. So…as stated…“Rights” in practice are what the government decides you have.
If the USG states you have a right to freedom of speech, but USG shoots anyone critical of USG then they really didn’t grant you that right. It’d be a good idea if they did, and they are lying, but it ain’t a right you actually are getting from them.
Finally, because I fear them, please support your local ATF, FBI, CIA, etc.
Fuck the Government. “Unalienable” doesn’t mean “granted by the great benevolent government to be taken away at their convenience.” If the government violates your God-given rights, it delegitimizes the government, not your rights. This will not stand forever. These insular thugs will eventually give way to a return to Constitutional government.
Wayne, What if the post office leased the land?
Nice in theory Brandon but I think you’re wrong. Why do you think our local sheriffs and police have been armed to the teeth with military type weapons and equipment?
Google “Tony Creed task force raid,” We have no rights. I read about stuff like this all the time. An hour is not a detention, it is an arrest. In Karens case my opinion is it’s a false one. I’m really surprised the ACLU took it. On the left coast I haven’t noticed them paying any attention to people with last names like Kilpatrick.
Actually Wayne I just checked and the 2 post offices here in this small town both sit on privately owned parcels.
How are “god-given” rights determined? Does the flying spaghetti monster know about this?
The claim that she had “links” to the Branch Davidian cult is simply inflammatory. The Branch Davidians were peaceful people until attacked by the government. Simply labeling their religion a cult doesn’t justify the persecution.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That’s how “God-given” rights are determined. It’s pretty weak to ridicule the semantics of an argument instead of addressing the argument. Very ONDCP of you. Whatever you believe, these are the rights we have in this country, further defined in the Constitution, and the government does not have the authority to take them away. Pretending they do just makes them, as Radley puts it, thugs.
And this is why I stay away from that term.
Actually Rights of individuals as negative rights are essentially inalienable. So the government can decide what rights it wants to enforce/or not, but that doesn’t mean those rights cease to exist.
Your problem is that Boyd just justified the holocaust, Stalin’s forced starvation of the Ukrainians, and Mao’s Cultural Revolution. If the government gets to decide rights, then the government gets to decide WHO has what rights, and WHO doesn’t. Really sucks for all those Polish Jews. But hey, government decided that they didn’t have rights anymore, so I guess they didn’t.
BTW: The location for the ATF offices in Pensacola…
125 W Romana St Ste 202, Pensacola, FL 32502-5848
Owner of said building:
ONE PENSACOLA PLAZA LLC
125 W ROMANA ST STE 720
PENSACOLA, FL 32501
It IS private property.
Regardless of whether a Federal agency satellite wishes to attempt to hide itself on “private” property, the defendant was quoted in the brief as saying ” you’re gonna make some people nervous driving around with writing like that on your vehicle.” Pretty lame reason for violating the plaintiff’s 4th Amendment rights, and we all know what happens when agents and cops get “nervous” – someone or some four-legged creature DIES!
I guess citizens must respect the government’s right to privacy, but to hell with ours. Well, apparently the judge didn’t feel the same way, thank God. Now if we could just get similar rulings for the many thousands of people who’ve had their rights to privacy trampled by government goons in drug raids and asset forfeitures, we’d get a little closer to cowing our out-of-control federal government.
Smurfy, thanks for the tip. To me, it’s counter intuitive that a federal building would be on private land — thanks for shedding light on this. Maybe I’m too easily amused, but it’s funny how the law means one thing when someone slams into my car on private property, but it means a whole ‘nother thing when a women has anti-gubmint bumper stickers on her car on private property.
“This website kind of cracks me up. So many of the people here assume we still have rights.”
T-Bone, though your snark might garner negative karma, it is your failure to establish a relevant premise that causes your quip to fall flat.
The phrase “we still have rights” presumes there was a time when individuals actually possessed rights. While conceivably true before the advent of the State, since that fateful day when man first understood that his fellow man was part of the environment to be controlled, rights have not existed.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re harking back to the glory days of the founding of the American Republic, no?
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” J.W. Von Goethe
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
“That’s how “God-given” rights are determined.”
Your argument is a non-sequitur, Brandon.
The supporting text for your argument, as you and I and everyone here knows, comes from the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legally-binding document in any sense of the term (not that the Constitution is legally-binding either, but it at least has the appearance of being legally-binding).
The Dec. of Ind. is beautiful, seductive, forked-tongued poetry of the highest order. It is a religious sermon. as beloved and immune to scrutiny as the Sermon on the Mount.
You yourself are living proof of its seductive capacity.
The fact remains that you as an individual possess no rights for which you personally are unwilling to fight and die for. or to live forever as an outcast. If you live in society, you play by society’s rules or not at all, and it is the State that creates, interprets and enforces those rules — with an eye toward its own preservation first and above all.
“First comes food, then comes morality.” Bertoldt Brecht
Chef, I don’t believe that anyone here is advocating that any group of individuals should have life-and-death power over any others. Those who are leaving cynical posts are merely telling it like it is.
In theory, individuals, as the only beings capable of action, are the possessors of inalienable rights.
In practice, once the State exists, individuals are subordinated to the State’s dictates of force.
Re: truthtellers — “First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.” M.K. Gandhi
re #38, pimf.
Should be addressed to “T-Dawg” not “T-Bone.” Mea culpa.
Lee, I think you have an “interesting” concept of choice: “They didn’t force her to remove the signs, she caved into their thug intimidation and did it herself. Unfortunately most people will cave, put the stuff back up later, and then complain later. People need to learn to stand up for their rights, no matter how scary it may be.”
Free choice from the wrong end of a gun aint free choice.
Remember, from HER perspective, the ATF are trigger happy thugs who don’t mind killing innocent (e.g, Waco). I’m not endorsing her view, but its not way out there, and IS kinda supported by the treatment she was receiving.
Don’t forget that they had no qualms violating other constitutional rights, and appear to have no problems making stuff up. The could have jailed her for a period of time. They could have impounded her van for more thorough searching, and gotten it back all ripped up looking for contraband, with no realistic prospect of reimbursement. All to determine if she was a “risk,” you see.
I think in this situation I would probably have done exactly the same that she did. I’m not a wuss, but I’m also not an idiot.