ProPublica Is Very Concerned That Females Are Charged With Filing False Reports

Ken Armstrong and T. Christian Miller of ProPublica, the propaganda arm of the Sandler Foundation (founded by Herb and Marion Sandler, the living embodiments of Honore de Balzac’s maxim “Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu’il a été proprement fait.”), have some thoughts on complaining witnesses in sex crimes cases. They’ve picked some instances when sex crimes witnesses were charged with filing false reports in support of “Listen and Believe.” This ignores that no person will ever do as much time for filing a false report as for being wrongfully convicted of rape, but we can’t let pesky facts disrupt the narrative.

There are many reasons for women to think twice about reporting sexual assault. But one potential consequence looms especially large: They may also be prosecuted.

For filing false police reports, which they should be if they are lying.

This month, a retired police lieutenant in Memphis, Tenn., Cody Wilkerson, testified, as part of a lawsuit against the city, not only that police detectives sometimes neglected to investigate cases of sexual assault but also that he overheard the head of investigative services in the city’s police department say, on his first day in charge: “The first thing we need to do is start locking up more victims for false reporting.” It’s an alarming choice of priorities — and one that can backfire.

This is a deceptive attempt at framing by Armstrong and Miller of the problems of the Memphis Police Department to get to the conclusion of ‘females aren’t listened to’ and ‘they don’t take rape seriously.’ This is a well-worn trick of advocacy types who take a fact and use it to draw a faulty conclusion, usually including some type of call to action.

The problem of the MPD is not that the department is full of evil, sexist men who hate females; their problem is one of crooked cops. Some are a little bent and don’t like actually doing police work. Those are the focus of Armstrong and Miller in this piece. Others are just crooks with badges. Those are the ones they ignore.

WREG in Memphis reported that the number of MPD officers arrested for criminal activity between 2011 and 2016 was 114. That’s a lot of dirty cops. It also lines up with a 2012 WREG news report in which then-Police Director Toney Armstrong described 20 arrests per year as being about normal for the MPD.

In short, the MPD has a problem with putting badges on people who probably shouldn’t have them. The types who put the badge on just to get a paycheck, to move up the ladder by massaging their clearance rates or arrest numbers, or worse, the ones who use the badge as a cover to commit to crimes.

In 2015 we wrote an article for ProPublica and the Marshall Project about Marie, an 18-year-old who reported being raped in Lynnwood, Wash., by a man who broke into her apartment. (Marie is her middle name.) Police detectives treated small inconsistencies in her account — common among trauma victims — as major discrepancies. Instead of interviewing her as a victim, they interrogated her as a suspect. Under pressure, Marie eventually recanted — and was charged with false reporting, punishable by up to a year in jail. The court ordered her to pay $500 in court costs, get mental health counseling for her lying and go on supervised probation for one year. More than two years later, the police in Colorado arrested a serial rapist — and discovered a photograph proving he had raped Marie.

What happened to Marie seemed unthinkable. She was victimized twice — first raped, then prosecuted. But cases like hers can be found around the country.

As can cases in which men were prosecuted for crimes they didn’t commit, like…rape? It sucks, doesn’t it? Not enjoying the protection of the law to which citizens are supposed to be due.

In Marie’s case, and with some of the other cases, the victims hadn’t acted the way the police thought a victim should act. Their affect seemed off, or they declined help from an advocate, or they looked away instead of making eye contact. As a result, their stories became suspect.

That’s terrible. But, as usual, I can do better.

Wilbert Jones, of Baton Rouge, LA, was recently freed after 45 years of imprisonment for the rape of a woman in 1971. The case was prosecuted entirely on the identification of Jones by the woman.

Listen and Believe, right?

The problem was, Jones didn’t do it. The prosecutor in Jones’ case withheld exculpatory evidence in his trial of another rape committed in an identical manner while Jones was in custody.

Marie was given a $500 fine. Jones spent 45 years in a Louisiana prison. Ruminate on which set of consequences you would rather suffer because a complaining witness was or was not ‘believed.’

In Lynnwood, the police have since changed the way they do things to prevent anything like Marie’s case from happening again. Detectives today receive additional training about trauma and cannot doubt a rape report absent “definitive proof” that it is false. In an effort to build trust, the department ensures that victims get immediate help from specially trained advocates. Those changes correspond with guidelines for rape investigations that sex-crimes experts have urged for police departments around the country. Those guidelines stress: The police should investigate thoroughly while reserving judgment. Evidence trumps assumptions. The police should be wary of stereotypes; they should not, for example, find an adolescent victim less believable than an adult. Some victims will be hysterical, others stoic; police should not measure credibility by a victim’s response. Police should not interrogate victims. They should listen.

If police don’t question witnesses, how will they get the facts necessary to gather evidence sufficient to argue probable cause for an arrest warrant?

Nationally, police departments, victim advocates and academics have experimented with ways to relieve the burden on rape victims who might fear dismissal, or even arrest, by reporting their attacks to the police. Perhaps the most influential campaign to change police procedures is known as Start by Believing, sponsored by End Violence Against Women International, an organization that conducts training for the police and victim advocates. The campaign asks participants to make a simple pledge: Start the process of investigation by believing those who come forward. Police agencies in nearly every state have joined up.

Or, as Saint Anselem of Canterbury wrote in Proslogion: Credo ut intelligam (I believe so that I may understand). This is all well and good if you are propigating theology, but it is a horrible concept for a judicial system that is supposed to be driven by evidence. It also flies in the face of Armstrong and Williams’ own facts. They stated that ‘Mary’ told her version of the story and then backed off on being questioned. She lied by contradicting what later turned out to be true.

The witnesses are lying.

Armstrong and Williams’ presented the deposition of Cody Wilkerson against the MPD as true, which accused certain cops in the MPD of lying about rape investigations and clearances.

The cops are lying.

I presented the case of Wilbert Jones who was wrongfully convicted of rape because of a false identification by the complaining witness and the witholding of exculpatory evidence by the prosecutor in his case.

The witnesses and the lawyers are lying.

This is where we come to the problem with this pithy sloganeering proffered by advocacy-types in general and feminists that fit really well on bumper stickers but make for bad praxis: In the criminal justice system, almost everyone is lying about something. Witnesses, lawyers, defendants, cops, jurors, and judges. Everybody is selling bullshit to everybody else. At the end of the game, the loser is the one stuck having to eat the biggest pile of bullshit. That’s usually the defendant.

Police in Ashland, Ore., started a program called You Have Options. Agencies that participate handle sexual-assault complaints in a radically different way. Victims can report a rape but request that the police not pursue criminal charges. The idea is to give more control to victims, who might otherwise be reluctant to involve themselves with law enforcement. The detective who founded the program believes it will help the police in the long term by increasing the number of people who come forward and allowing police to collect information that could be used in future investigations if a victim changes his or her mind.

Meanwhile, criminals are allowed to just keep walking the streets because the complaining witness, by some perverse nonlogic, is given more say-so in the process beyond the choice to testify or not.

Both programs are controversial. For instance, Stacy Galbraith, the detective in Colorado who arrested the serial rapist in Marie’s case, told us her starting point isn’t believing: “I think it’s listen to your victim. And then corroborate or refute based on how things go.”

This sounds suspiciously like actual police work. Are we so far gone as a society that skepticism and following the facts where they lead, even if it is to a dead end, is controversial?

You Have Options is an even tougher sell. Many police officers are instinctively resistant to the idea of not immediately investigating a rape. Their job, after all, is to catch bad guys, not let them get away.

It is clear that some law enforcement agencies have begun to experiment with ways to be more responsive to rape victims. It is equally clear that there are no simple solutions. The path forward will almost certainly be contentious. But if we are going to make it easier for victims to tell their stories to law enforcement, change is essential.

Here’s where I part ways with Armstrong and Williams (again). The purpose of law enforcement is to catch bad guys. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect defendants from the power of the state. The personal comfort of witnesses is not a goal nor should it be. Witnesses should be uncomfortable in testifying because of what is at stake: A person’s freedom or life. The process of depriving a defendant of their freedom should never be comfortable or easy, no matter how deserving of destruction the defendant may be.



Black Matriarch and Her Brood Are Arrested and Carted Off To Jail on Facebook

A Texas woman has been forcibly arrested after calling a police officer to report a neighbour for choking her seven-year-old son.

A livestream of the encounter between the police officer and Fort Worth resident Jacqueline Craig, 46, was shared to Facebook by a relative yesterday, where it has since received a million views.

The video shows Ms Craig telling an officer her neighbour had no right to grab and choke her son for littering.

“What you should have done because we have been living here for years… you could have came to me. You don’t put your hands on my son,” she can be heard saying.

“Why don’t you teach your son not to litter?” the officer replies.

“He can’t prove to me that my son littered. But it doesn’t matter if he did or didn’t. He didn’t have to put his hands on him,” Ms Craig responds, to which the officer asks: “Why not?”

Angered by the officer’s indifference to her complaint, Ms Craig approaches the officer, at which point her daughter Brea Hymond tries to step between the two.

The officer draws his stungun then wrestles Ms Craig and Ms Brea to the ground, before cuffing and hustling them to the police car.

Ms Craig, who had outstanding warrants for traffic violations, remains in jail on charges of resisting arrest and failing to identify as a fugitive, local broadcaster Fox 4 reports.

Ms Hymond also remains on jail charged with resisting arrest and interfering with public duties. A third person, believed to be the juvenile cameraperson, was also reportedly arrested.

For Worth Police Department is presently conducting an investigation into the incident.

A rally surrounding the video is expected to be held at Tarrant County Courthouse later today.

You know, if I didn’t know better, I would swear everything is on Live…bitch.

There was clearly some interaction that took place well-before the recording started and the cop is not buying this bullshit about this random white guy choking Craig’s son.

The Cop @ 1:07: “Why don’t you teach your son not to litter?”

The black matriarch pivots from “he choked my son” to “it doesn’t matter if he[the son] did or didn’t litter.” She’s given up the “he choked my son” argument because she knows it was bullshit from the get-go, so now she’s arguing black matriarch morality, which is no morality at all.

This is the black female mindset encapsulated. It doesn’t matter what she and hers do to violate you, or your property, or your peace of mind, but if you react to her bullshit, your reaction is unjustified.

The Cop @ 1:38: What are you yelling at?

Craig @ 1:39: Because you pissed me off!

That’s right. The Black females of BlackLivesMatter like to claim “I’m scared for my life! I’m scared for my sons!”

What a bunch of shit.

Black females aren’t worried about the police. The police are their friends. Who called this cop into this situation? The black female. Who usually calls the cops on black men? Black females. But in this case, Jacqueline Craig was a little confused. You see, the cop is not going to just run in and humble a white man like he would a black man on your say-so.

The Cop @1:42: If you keep yelling at me, you’re going to piss me off, and I’m going to take you to jail.

Craig: No you’re not!

You’ve got to have some balls or some leverage to tell a beat cop what he’s not going to do to you on the street. Unfortunately, the black matriarch lacks balls, or leverage, or even common sense to know when to quit, cut bait, and take herself and her brood back inside of their house.

@ 1:48: Craig approaches the Cop, followed by the girl in the pink. Then another black female pops up on the Cop’s blind side and shoves him.

This cop is out on this bullshit call solo. First, the big one approaches him from the front after telling him that he wasn’t taking her to jail (clearly indicating that she intended to resist any arrest he might effect). Then the girl in the pink puts herself between the cop and Craig (interference with police). Then, the little punk in the black comes up and shoves the cop from the side.

That’s when the cop has enough and arrests Craig, then arrests the girl in pink.

“Everything on motherfucking Live, bitch!”

Repeated ad nauseum.

Finally, the cop snatches up the camera-wielding black matriarch and takes her to jail with them (she’s the one walking around the apartment complex, playing in her braids, and smiling because she knows she’s about to get her fix of Facebook thumbs up and likes).

According to the printed story, Craig is in jail on outstanding traffic warrants. I would like to congratulate Ms. Craig. Calling the police while you have outstanding warrants is just genius. I have no doubts that she will transmit that same level of responsibility and reasoning to the 7-year-old boy. The girl in the pink, her daughter, Brea Hymond, is also in jail for resisting arrest and interfering with public duties. That’s right. You don’t physically interpose yourself between a cop and someone else. As the video shows, the black matriarch behind the camera is already out (hence all of the hair-flipping and smiling and laughing).

And just for shits and giggles, here are Facebook simps and Black Matriarch Drones offering less-than-helpful commentary and advice:

Pastor Keithron Powell

So the adult can assault the child but the mother can’t speak?

Speak to a cop all you want. That’s generally how idiots end up getting arrested, speaking to cops.

Riko Smalls

See that’s when somebody needs to pull out their gun. And shoot that pig in the head. Fucc him

I honestly have no idea why cops might by less-than-comfortable dealing with black men on the sidewalk.

Easye Lyons

For the people that say u can’t curse a cop know an learn ur rights .educate urself

You can also put your head in a lion’s mouth or stick your dick in a blender, it doesn’t make them good ideas.

Forris Gump Massey

Fellaz this is why we must protect our women and children from POLICE BRUTALITY everywhere…

Not my women (I would remember if I fucked a black matriarch built like the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man) and those for damn sure aren’t my kids.

Black matriarchs like have bastard babies and living without a man worth a damn, then they can live the life they have chosen.

Gary Baker

But she’s in public and he’s in public had no reason to arrest he she didn’t commit a crime.

Outstanding warrants, resisting arrest, interfering in public duties.

Keron Mckenzie

Why didn’t y’all just jump his ass? He can’t beat all y’all. I wish a cop would treat my mom like that. I’ll die that day.

The Rhodes Scholar of the bunch. Yes, jump the cop. And then when the reinforcements and the SWAT team show up and proceed to pull your assholes out through your throats, what’s your next step?

Oh, that’s right. “I’ll die that day.”

Black matriachs and simps trained by the black matriarchy, a few questions, if I may:

If you place no value or priority on your continued survival, why should anyone else? If your life is only worth 22 cents, why shouldn’t the police pay you in hot brass if it means they get to go home safely?


Archived Source

Facebook Archive

Mulatto BLM Fanatic Breaks Into A Cop’s House; Catches Hot Lead to The Chest

Tyler Gebhard, 20, of Affton, MO, broke into the home of an off-duty St. Louis County Police officer after threatening the officer and his family on Facebook (Heil Zuckerberg!) as the result of an argument online between himself and the officer. Gebhard and the unnamed officer had a prior acquaintance. Gebhard arrived at the officer’s home at around 6 PM. He tossed a 50-pound planter through a glass door at the rear of the house. The officer’s family retreated to a bedroom while the officer confronted Gebhard. The officer shot Gebhard twice in the chest. EMTs took Gebhard to St. Anthony’s Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Once again, another person who takes this Facebook/Social Media shit way too seriously. I pray to Aqua Buddha for the day when somebody drags Zuckerberg and the rest of his ilk into court for a wrongful death lawsuit. I’m not sure it would work, but I hold Facebook in the same contempt as I do Gawker. And Salon. And Slate. And Jezebel. And The Huffington Post. And Bustle. And CBS. And FOX. And ABC. And NBC. And USA Today.

But I digress. Most of the time, if you are arguing with someone on the other end of a computer, the argument is probably stupid and you gain nothing from it. In this case, Tyler did gain something; two small brass projectiles, hurled into his body at approximately the speed of sound which left him metabolically challenged.

His uncle (no mom and dad in this story, which is telling) said that he was such a good boy because, well, he played football, and he went to college. Because aren’t all college students and football players fine, upstanding, moral individuals? There was also a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, for which he was prescribed medication, but didn’t like to take.

Which brings me back to the prior point about arguing on the computer with people. I just assume you are all drugged and insane and that engaging you for any length of time will only worsen your insanity. And this is another nutjob that has flocked to the Black Lives Matter banner. I just posted about the nutty Miss Alabama and the bullshit argument about collective guilt.

When Dylann Storm Roof shot the Churchians in Charleston, the usual suspects were quick to broad-brush Roof as the poster boy for “White America.”

Dylann Storm Roof and the conversation white America should actually be having about race

Dear white allies after Charleston: Please understand this about your privilege
White Terrorism Is as Old as America
I’m still waiting for white people to start apologising for Dylann Roof
America needs some soul searching
This is American terrorism: White supremacy’s brutal, centuries-long campaign of violence

I said my peace about Roof and will not rehash it. It’s interesting that both Dylann Storm Roof and Micah Xavier Johnson were both failures at life, both tied their identities to the accomplishments/worth of people not themselves, and both wanted to provoke a race war.

It’s almost as if race/class war ideologies tend to attract losers and failures and incompetents whose lives are without value or purpose.

Sort of like the type of guy who would run off to a cop’s house to pick a fight over a Facebook argument about BlackLivesMatter.


Archived Source

A Wild Copsucker Appears On Fox News!

For the last few days, Fox News has gone on a campaign of full blown cop sucking that would put even the most loose-throated porn actresses to shame. Fox doesn’t have a monopoly on bowing and scraping before the law enforcers, but few corporate media outlets have been quite so blatant about it recently.

Last night, professional talking head Bill O’Reilly opined that “[s]ome people believe that cops in general are oppressors, especially towards people of color.” Bill follows that up by claiming that “disrespecting” the police leads to violence. He veers off to the specious, irrational implication that in the absence of the police, “law and order would break down” or put more succinctly, people would eat each other if our badge-wearing guardian angels weren’t around weren’t around. Bill also informs the viewers that they signed a law enforcement contract (similar to that Rousseauean Social Contract) that obligates the public to obey the police. Finally, Bill begs for understanding for this poor cop who merely overreacted, filled his hand with a gun, and chased around some teenagers and any decent person would forgive this overreacting jackbooted goon.

Sean Hannity did his network-appointed duty and put a jackass “black activist”/Reverend (who also made the rounds on MSNBC) who threatened attacks on the police. Hannity then held up Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin and insinuated that because these interactions with the police may have been justifiable, the actions of the police in this situation (McKinney, TX pool party) were justifiable as well. Recorded instances of police malfeasance are easy to produce to counter that notion.

Greta Van Sustren interviewed the former Commissioner of the NYPD, Howard Safir, who breathlessly told Greta that the Justice Department spent too much time chasing bad cops and not enough time chasing criminals. They repeated the ridiculous narrative that “cops put their lives on the line every day” and that because the cops feelings are hurt by people criticizing them, the violent crime stats of Baltimore, Maryland are on the upswing (also known affectionately as Bodymore, Murderland).

Today, Megyn Kelly triumphantly revealed that Marilyn Mosby, the prosecutor for Baltimore, ordered a police crackdown on the area where the police arrested and killed Freddie Gray, as if telling the police to go to a certain place is the same thing as co-signing Gray’s murder.

On Fox’s morning show, Fox & Friends, they repeated the absurd charge that the Fourth Amendment shredding “stop and frisk” policy being ended is the cause of an increase in homicides in New York. The host of the show also tied into the laughable charge of a “war on cops.” Also featured as the guest interviewee, Bernie Kerik, former police commissioner, former Minister of the Interior of Iraq, and tax dodger.

How does one interpret this seemingly concerted effort to discount valid criticism of the actions and the mentality of the police? Start by acknowledging that the theme of corrupt law enforcers is nothing new. Just look back to the tale of Robin Hood and his nemesis, the Sheriff of Nottingham. In America, the concept of “community policing” which originated with Robert Peel in England in 1823, was used to better organize slave patrols in the Antebellum South. After the Civil War, some of the slave patrollers successfully transitioned into city police departments and county sheriff’s office. The police in America have typically been deployed, not to maintain any general sense of peace or order, but to keep undesirable populations, whether they are slaves, black people, or the poor in general, in check and away from the more respectable citizens. And before any readers in the Northern states bruise themselves too hard patting themselves on the back, keep in mind that the police departments with the worst records of abuses against their citizens are usually northern and urban (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia. I would make Los Angeles an honorary Northern city based on all of the transplants, but that wouldn’t be fair).

The only reason I put up this extremely abbreviated tale of the origin of American police is to combat some of the cop mythology and propaganda that the American people have been inundated with, specifically the ideas that cops are either always good, and that they “put their lives on the line every day.” To the first part, the answer a resounding NO, by fact and by reason. The first famous cop-filming case, the Rodney King assault by the LAPD, shocked the consciences of a nation that had been raised on Andy Griffith, Joe Friday, Steve McGarrett, and Columbo. The fantasy, the Hollywood polishing didn’t mesh with the reality. So naturally, those good law and order citizens had excuses ready. Clearly, Rodney King was a scumbag, which somehow excused him being savagely beaten. The cops were under stress, which excused Rodney King being savagely beaten. The cops put their lives on the line every day, which excused Rodney King being savagely beaten. As time passed and technology improved, tales of police malfeasance emerged from hushed whispers in police locker rooms, jail cells, and the offices of the scant lawyers who dared to oppose the thin blue line, and showed the real price of law and order for all of America to enjoy. Did the police just suddenly develop a taste for shooting fleeing suspects, beating suspects, framing suspects, and generally abusing the rights of American citizens? No. The problem is, there was little hard evidence against the police and even when evidence was on hand, the police had the handy tool, created for them by the judiciary, of “qualified immunity” for when a cop clearly, unequivocally broke the law or violated the Constitution, but still couldn’t be held liable to his victim because “law and order” was at stake. And when the police are not obliged to follow the law, then there really is no law.

But what about the cops who don’t whip ass, or shoot unarmed suspects, or kill suspects in custody? They are as culpable as those that do, especially when they place their membership in the police above their duty to the public. Cops who don’t turn in or arrest bad cops are no better than the bad cops themselves. Anyone who places the idea of fraternity to another person higher than the people from where he derives the power to carry a badge and a gun, is unworthy of the responsibility of upholding the law and the lawful power necessary to uphold it.

The argument that a police officer may be called upon to risk his life is even less compelling than the idea that the police are generally good. Whatever risk is involved in policing, the person with the badge assumed that risk voluntarily. There is no police officer draft. There aren’t roving patrols of cops press-ganging young men into joining the police academy. Every person who is wearing a badge in America is wearing it because they chose to do so. The police are not a hereditary caste or a holy order. It is an occupation, no more or less honorable than a baker or a garbageman. If the current crop of police can’t do that job without a deluge of pats on the back or a soothing stream of thanks and reassurances, or without trampling on the Constitution, they are probably unsuited to it and should find something less stressful and with fewer responsibilities. Instead of demanding that the public ignore police misconduct or excuse it, Fox News should demand that America have a better caliber of police.