Inside the mind of a puppycide offender.
I don’t know, it’s hard for me to get too worked up over people clamoring for their right to not care about sex. Isn’t it just a matter of not caring?
Supreme Court to hear case of honor student strip-searched for suspicion of possessing ibuprofen. Given that the appeals court ruled in her favor, and that this particular Supreme Court lineup isn’t particularly fond of student rights, that may not be a good sign.
The Georgia State Court of Appeals threw out the conviction of Arthur Tesler, one of the cops involved in the Kathryn Johnston raid. Apparently, the prosecution failed to prove where the crime took place. Just another criminal who may get off on a technicality, eh?
Here’s a group pushing for Mississippi to repeal an antiquated law limiting beer sold in the state to five percent alcohol by weight.
Fresno is trying to pass a law requiring the monitoring of sex offenders even after they finish parole. But the real reason I’m linking to the article is because though the mayor may be totalitarian light, she has a pretty awesome last name.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, January 17th, 2009 at 10:47 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Alcohol, General Criminal Justice, Nanny State, Police Militarization.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
From the asexual article: “For something to be considered a psychological illness, Brotto said, “a person needs to be distressed or bothered by the condition. Asexual people are not. Their only distress is distress over the idea that they will not be accepted by society.”
So, your question, “Isn’t it just a matter of not caring?” would be a resounding negative to this group.. Society must accept them, (whatever that means). I foresee marches in the streets screaming, “WE’RE HERE! WE’RE hmmm… here. WE’RE… wait where are we again?” Maybe they will get a constitutional amendment to redefine the meaning of the word ‘sex’ and ‘foreplay’? Whatever it takes for society to ‘accept’ those who have lived their entire life “feeling different”. Acceptence — the great magic pill that makes all my anxiety and relational disorders simply go away.
I’m guessing that the Supreme Court is going to look most closely at whether the school officials can be sued in the ibuprofen case, given its convoluted take in Frederick v. Morse and its recent desire to protect professional authority figures from having to pay for their “innocent” mistakes.
If we takes away our school’s rights to strip search kids for ibuprofen, the next thing you know these kids will start packing their bra and panties with aspirin, cough drops, or even vitamins.
Just another criminal who may get off on a technicality, eh?
No, usually the “technicality” is “someone else committed the crime”, except on TV shows.
No doubt Ms. Swearengin is a cocksucker.
Guys, take a chill pill.
They just want to make sure that asexuality is not classified as a mental illness. That’s it.
They don’t want any special recognition, privileges or immunities.
Nor are they mentally ill. guys like Eleoke Stobblehouse, who runs Domai (warning NSFW) seem to be fairly well-adjusted and sensible.
“Shooting dogs for us is a very minor thing, admin doesn’t give two craps if you lay one down while on a call.”
That’s odd. I was under the impression that prospective LEO’s were supposed to undergo a psych evaluation in order to weed *OUT* those miscreants who spent their childhood torturing small animals.
Apparently,
I was mistaken. It looks as if they are now selecting *FOR* that particular trait.
“But we need to have more discussion about how people can not have sex and still be happy.”
That’s easy.
First – don’t have sex.
Then – be happy.
Then when Madison Avenue comes to your door, she’ll say “your happy and you didn’t have sex”
You just say two simple words: “I Forgot”
To counter the “totalitarian light” mayor of Fresno, the president of the anti-totalitarian Free State Project is Varrin (rhymes with Darren) Swearingen.
Varrin is originally from California, and ran for Congress on the LP ticket, before moving to New Hampshire.
http://www.freestateproject.org
So, how often does the FBI forget where they were lied to when the perpetrator is not a fellow LEO?
I haven’t read the opinion from the court on the Kathryn Johnston shooting, but that seems really freaking odd.
Granted, evidence needs to be submitted as to the location of the crime, so that the court trying the case can have jurisdiction. Usually this amounts to the prosecution asking a witness “And this happened with in This County?” Thats all that is needed, and I’ve never seen a prosecutor just forget to ask this (i’m a criminal defense lawyer). Its also in the indictment where the crime took place, such as “On May 10th, 2005, within Some City, in Some County, in Some State, the defendant did …..” Its pretty boilerplate language, cut and paste type stuff.
Now, I’ll grant that if that evidence isn’t introduced at all, then the verdict has to be reversed. HOWEVER, it strikes me as more likely that the prosecutor purposefully failed to introduce that rather than just forgot. I know this sounds like conspiracy theory, but lets say the prosecutor didn’t really want to convict, then he just fails to ask that simple basic question and kind of says something to defense counsel after the conviction is given along the lines of “oh gee, i’m glad you didn’t catch that I failed to establish that the crime occurred in this county. That would’ve been a big blunder on my part if you had caught that!” And Eureka! grounds for reversal.
I wish I hadn’t followed that puppycide link. And I really wish I hadn’t followed that into the thread.
The underlying assumption seems to be that most members of a species that has been carefully domesticated for thousands of years are actually bloodthirsty killers that will tear you to pieces at the first opportunity.
I’m left to assume that anyone with a badge and gun is a dangerous sociopath. I’m sure that’s not the case with many–perhaps even most–of them. But you know, it just seems like common sense to treat them accordingly, for my own safety.
FYI The policeman hasn’t gottne off scott free:
He plead guilty to Federal charges, and will be sentenced in February for them
Well, on the one hand, it only takes 4 members of the court to vote to take a case, and Scalia & Co. would vote to take it up, because they’re insane, and they’re may be 5 votes against it. But on the other hand, Kennedy isn’t exactly friendly to schoolhouse rights, and neither is Breyer(or is it Souter? I always get these two confused).
Yeah. That girl is screwed.
The SCrOTUS will support the schools “right” to strip search. Those morons are unbelievable bastards that will do anything for the unwinnable “War on Drugs (Rights, Sanity, Brown People, Poor People, etc.)”
Even if you go in for the wild hyperbole that all cops are sociopaths (myself, I would say a majority is a safe bet), reducing the argument from emotion to logic dictates that a police officer who perceives a threat is going to act in his own self-preservation first. This means shooting a dog, even if it is not attacking because it may attack.
There is simply nothing a dog owner who lives in society ruled by the State can do to protect his/her dog 100%.
However, anyone who is interested in a strategy that balances individual dog owners against the State can form a community-outreach organization or political action committee to liaison with police departments and encourage, if not ultimately force, a change in their policy.
About a month and counting since I introduced the idea. Dog owners, channel your outrage into something productive instead of this narcissistic cathartic whining! I challenge you!
Cynical in CA,
So start a campaign with slogans like “please don’t empty your gun into our family pets?” Or “hey, you know how 99.9% of dogs that come up to you are interested in smelling your hand, not chomping on your genitals – well, could you sorta take that into account the next time you invade someone else’s property?”
Sounds like a good plan. I’m sure it’ll be as successful as DARE.
The “error” in the Tesler case was DELIBERATE.
The prosecutor knew precisely what he was doing. So easy and so fatal to the case. Jeopardy attached and now the Defendant walks completely free. In 40 years of lawyering, I’ve seen this done three times. Always for cops found guilty by a jury of citizens.
Cop wife beaters are the only people that I ever seen allowed to “withdraw” a lawyer-represented guilty plea to DV beef and then have the prosecutor “drop” the now open charges. All so the thugs could continue to carry their guns.
I wonder if Ms. Swearingen is related to Al.
I predict a slow-brewing shit-storm coming from that post by creolecop about cops shooting dogs…
So pressuring your assexual partner to have sex is eeveel, but expecting your sexual partner to live a life of involuntary cellibacy is fine and dandy…
Stormy,
It’s find a new partner time! Why pressure? If they want to live that way and you don’t time to move on.
wow, voted down for my lack of faith (i.e. having read the record) on the SCOTUS or was it the ‘r’? Maybe I should have used SCrOTUmS?
“Sounds like a good plan. I’m sure it’ll be as successful as DARE.”
Won’t know until it’s tried, right “More cynical?”
At least you live up to your name.
Do tell — do you own a dog?
/not holding breath for response
“I don’t know, it’s hard for me to get too worked up over people clamoring for their right to not care about sex. Isn’t it just a matter of not caring?”
You’ve got to FIGHT for you RIGHT to PAAARTY [asexually].
http://www.rightklik.net/
#16 Cynical: “Even if you go in for the wild hyperbole that all cops are sociopaths (myself, I would say a majority is a safe bet)…”
Not to be a dick, Cynical, but are you sure you know what a sociopath (alternately referred to by some psychologists as psychopaths). I was a criminal justic major, but I have studied forensic psychology quite a bit. Certainly some sociopaths have been able to get into law enforcement, but I find it hard to believe that they represent a large percentage of LEO’s. First off, sociopaths are very undependable, so things like punctuality and following orders would be too much for someone with strong sociopathic tendencies. Also, sociopaths are totally self-absorbed, so it is unlikely they would last long in a field where you have to worry about other peoples’ problems most of the time. For a good read on sociopaths/psychopaths, I recommend “Without Conscience” by Robert Hare. Don’t toss the word sociopath around to the point that it loses its meaning.
I have a membership at that particular police website and I’m able to view forums that are supposed to be restricted to police officers. That post is hardly the most damning. You should see the thread on “Professional Courtesy.” Some of the officers on that site are good cops, but many of others are just in for the authority kick. Also the mentality of the forum is very much us (the police) against them (average joe citizen).
Swearingen! COOOOOCKSUUUCKERAAAAAAA!!!!
with regards to the Supreme Court case, it depends how they frame the case. If it’s in regards to whether or not they can strip someone for illegal drugs with probable case, I’m sure the Supreme Court will overturn the ruling. I hope, that because it’s ibuprofen, that strip searching will be considered excessive, especially since she didn’t have a disciplinary record.
About asexual people Tarran wrote: “Nor are they mentally ill.”
That is one heck of a broad sentence to make. They very well could be mentally ill, (depression, anxiety disorders, etc.), although a physical aliment is also possible, (infections, circulation problems, hormonal and glandular problems, etc.). And drug use is a common killer of sexual desires.
Either way, the key to all of this is the individual’s choice. If he/she/it WANTS to increase sexual drive in a particular direction they should not be forced into affirmative therapy to remain asexual. This is exactly what the American Psychiatric Association has forced upon the gay and lesbian community by not allowing their therapist members to EVER treat the condition as a disorder. (Although, some therapists are willing to allow clients to set their own goals for their life and help them work towards those goals. But the vast majority are gay affirmative therapists, yet there are none that can openly admit to being gay UNaffirmative without jeopardizing their careers).
Many prosecutors and cops are very close – often sleeping in the same bed. It wasn’t a mistake.
Certainly some sociopaths have been able to get into law enforcement, but I find it hard to believe that they represent a large percentage of LEO’s.
You are suggesting that “sociopath” is not an accurate diagnosis for cops who demonstrate antipathy toward citizens and their property. That may well be true. I would suggest, though, that such cops possess traits that should be filtered out but instead seem to be filtered for.
Most cops are probably not sociopaths, just imbeciles.
Fair enough, Helmut. I concede the meaning of “sociopath.” Please forgive my own hyperbole.
Perhaps we can still agree there is a problem for freedom-seeking individuals who desire to live in society as regards State intrusion?
Helmut your description of sociopath certainly sounds like most cops to me.
They are not very punctual: Call them and wait an hour after being robbed.
They are totally self absorbed: They do not care if you only had a seed they want to bust you for distribution so they are a big hero.
They do not care about others problems: You may be having an epileptic fit, but I’m going to taser you for grabbing me. Look at link.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1ee_1232067973
I think I actually dropped the word “sociopath” first here.
And yes, I am aware of the definition.
And I continue to stand by my comment.
You know what else isn’t a good sign in the ibuprofen case? The fact that Samuel ”Why do you keep bringing up the fact that this case involves the strip search of a 10-year-old child?” Alito is on the bench.
Cynical in CA,
I do not have a dog, I have some cats (most cops probably don’t have good enough aim to hit them). And yes, forgive my sarcasm, but if we need an advocacy group to get the word out that it’s not kosher to shoot family pets, it’s too late.
As for “sociopath”, it’s not like the cops are incapable of emotion; I’m sure most of them lead a normal life when not in uniform, love their children, and suffer emotional pain when something bad happens to those they love. However, it could be argued too many of them have the ability to compartmentalize their empathy, to conditionally turn off the normal feelings towards others and treat them as objects that can be only viewed with respect to the (State-defined) Law. I would say this “ability” is widespread, and we could find examples throughout history and the present day, of horrible crimes done to one group by another group who then goes home and tucks their children into bed at night. I’m sure there are ways to measure this ability in a person, and do a reasonable job of weeding it out. But what incentive does the government have to do this? They want people who treat their Law above human beings – using force is essentially what government is, and it’s no good hiring people who will hesitate to use force when told to.
I’m late to the party but here is the AJC’s writeup on the appeal:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2009/01/16/police_conviction_overturned.html
@ #39: The Tesler appeal, not the strip search
Regarding the ibuprofen story…does anyone know exactly what is being contested here? Is the issue whether the school can search at all, or if they need a certain level of probable cause before they do? I recall from high school when a friend was smoking pot in the restroom and, after tossing the roach in the toilet, was exiting the restroom just as the vice principal entered. He was the only kid in the bathroom and both he and it reeked of pot. The school searched his car, his locker, and his person, although there was no strip search–just the “empty out your pockets” kind. Although no one actually claimed to have seen him smoking, the search didn’t seem unreasonable (even to the kid himself) given the circumstances.
Relying on someone who got caught with ibuprofen snitching on someone else (with no record of any trouble, apparently) hardly seems to warrant this response. However, what if Student A goes to the teacher/principal and says that Student B has a gun? Is there a difference since the gun could be regarded as an imminent threat to others (and should be able to be found without a strip search)? If there are any of you legal types out there who know exactly what the Court is going to rule on, I’d appreciate knowing.
#38 More Cynical: “However, it could be argued too many of them have the ability to compartmentalize their empathy, to conditionally turn off the normal feelings towards others and treat them as objects that can be only viewed with respect to the (State-defined) Law.”
Fair point. At it’s worst, this explains the behavior of many affiliated with fascist and communist regimes. Observing this phenomenon in action at Nuremberg, Hanna Arendt called it “the banality of evil.”
So it could be that some cops gone wrong are “true believers,” zealots that have identified an enemy and are willing to use ruthless means to neutralize that enemy. These folks would certainly outnumber the sociopaths, but I don’t think they are even close to a majority. Instead, I believe officers who abuse their power or abuse citizens are like most “common criminals.” They are shaped by their environment. They are burnt out and disappointed at what there job has become. If they work in an environment that is like a war zone (ie. most American ghettos) they may view themselves as an occupying army (and as James Baldwin suggested, perhaps they are).
If you aspire to live in a free society, this is obviously unhealthy. I understand that officers working in more stable communities also go bad, but I think it is pretty obvious that most of the worst policing (from a civil liberties and community relations standpoint) occurs in these impoverished areas that are controlled by public drug/vice markets. So if we want to see what policing COULD become, we need to end the wars on drugs/vice, remove much of what we do from the “political” sphere, and let our police focus solely on protecting the lives, properties and rights of citizens. If we move in this direction, I think there is a good chance we will also “abolish” ghettos in the process. And that would be good for private citizens and police alike.
They want people who treat their Law above human beings
Their so-called law. Totalitarian anarchists want their will to be seen as law, even though the only legitimate law is the Constitution of the United States, which often forbids the things the totalitarian anarchists want to do.
#35 Mack: “Helmut your description of sociopath certainly sounds like most cops to me.
They are not very punctual: Call them and wait an hour after being robbed.”
Mack, I was talking about basic issues like getting to work on time, dealing with the rigors of the academy setting, following general orders/written procedcures, etc.. People w/ strong sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies would not last long in a quasi-military environment like a police department. Sociopaths are rule-breakers by definition, thus most would thumb their noses at all the uniform regulations, chain of command and other bureaucratic shit that police deal with on a daily basis.
Regarding response time, that is a two pronged issue. First, many departments have poor response time because, as I alluded to in #42, they essentially work in war zones. If you get robbed in a quiet suburb, I highly doubt you would have to wait an hour for a police response. When police call loads are out of control, then the quality of policing suffers. As an analogy, think about a military hospital in a war zone. Does the trauma staff have time to be thorough? Probably not. They’re just trying to stabilize patients so that they can move on to the next ones. A similar dynamic is occurring in modern policing.
Secondly, how important is response time if a crime or other emergency is not in progress? A quick, even immediate, response seldom leads to the capture of suspects. The over-emphasis on rapid response has not served law enforcement well. As Peter Moskos (author of “Cop in the Hood”) points out, 911 is great for heart attacks and fires, not so much for most police work. A more professional form of policing may come about if the police are allowed to do what they should be doing (in libertarian speak, protect us from force and fraud) and not much more. In addition, citizens (and many police officers) need to realize that most police work is not about car chases and fugitive hunting, and does not require rapid responses, lights and sirens, and all that stuff.
“Totalitarian anarchists want their will to be seen as law, even though the only legitimate law is the Constitution of the United States, which often forbids the things the totalitarian anarchists want to do.”
I am curious as to how you derive that the U.S. Constitution is legitimate. It certainly is not legitimate prima facie from a historical perspective. The U.S. Constitution was a coup d’etat against the regime under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional Convention did not have the authority to usurp the Articles of Confederation, only to reform it. The minority shoved the Constitution down the throats of a very skeptical public.
I suppose you could argue that 230 years down the line, the U.S. Constitution now has conventional status as law of the land. But that does not erase the circumstances of the coup d’etat under which it was instituted.
The U.S. Constitution is illegitimate. The totalitarian anarchists (great phrase, btw) use it in the same way a holy-roller preacher (or any other for that matter) uses the Bible, as a fig leaf for power.
#38 | More cynical | January 18th, 2009 at 11:51 am
“I do not have a dog, I have some cats (most cops probably don’t have good enough aim to hit them). And yes, forgive my sarcasm, but if we need an advocacy group to get the word out that it’s not kosher to shoot family pets, it’s too late.”
Same here, more. No dogs, two cats. I figure I’m pretty much safe from a cop shooting a pet around here.
As for it being too late, well, you are more cynical than I. I may be cynical, skeptical and pessimistic, but I’m not bereft of hope.
One problem with schoolhouse rights stems from these zero-tolerance policies.
“The school has a zero-tolerance policy for all prescription and over-the-counter medication, including the ibuprofen, without prior written permission.”
I have a zero-tolerance policy that no one strip searches my kids without me being there. Wonder how that’s going to work out for me.
#41/M.Zinnen:
Regardless of any rule, policy or law, it’s just wholly inappropriate to give a school principal the authority to order a student to disrobe, at any time, for any reason. Period.
School nurses and principals’ assistants should never be allowed to conduct peneological functions such as body searches of any sort, this is a school, not a jail/prison. That the three adults involved thought this rational and reasonable is chilling. They all should be charged and labeled as sex offenders. I mean, this is the same profession that labels six year olds, sexual harassers and has 10 year olds charged with a weapons possession on school property for bringing a toy gun to school. If they expect so much maturity from “true” children, can’t we expect better from them?
Call the police, have the student formally charged and arrested, taken to a police station, then conduct a strip search but completely eliminate “qualified immunity”. In order to degrade, humiliate and traumatize someone to this degree, the principal/teacher should have to bear total responsibility and suffer a civil lawsuit when it turns out, in most cases, they are/were wrong! A simple “sorry” or lack there of just won’t cut it.
I agree with Mr. Balko, I don’t hold out too much hope for this case either, especially with “strip search sammy” on board. The Supreme Court has found a group of people whom they can strip away (pardon the pun) any semblance of fourth amendment protections under the guise of protecting these same people (it’s about the children!) yet at the same time and with a straight face, completely harm them by denying them the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure. I believe the phrase the SC uses for chewing up and spiting out the 4th Amendment is “exigent circumstances”? Bloody sick logic.
” Inside the mind of a puppycide offender.”
You have to wonder how UPS and FedEx guys manage without a sidearm.
Maybe cops should be required to work for those companies first, in order to learn how to cope.