Thank you John Foust, Sharon Bulova and the Fairfax County Police, we made another brutality list thanks to your efforts

Help build a definitive guide to every unreleased video of police brutality

By Shaun KingFollow

Across the country, videos of extreme police brutality and murder exist, but are being concealed by police departments, prosecutors, and even media organizations. For nearly nine months, a deeply disturbing video of the Salt Lake City, Utah, police killing of Dillon Taylor existed, but was concealed not only by police and the district attorney, but even by the Salt Lake City Tribune.

In the video, we learned that Taylor, unarmed and committing no crime, posed no real threat to the officer and was listening to music on his headphones. We also witnessed the gruesome aftermath of what it truly looks like when someone is shot at point blank range by the police and then summarily treated like a criminal. It's one of the worst things you'll ever see in your life and should inform how you feel about the true impact of police brutality.

Ultimately, it's my strong belief that every video of police brutality and murder should be released immediately—not after prosecutors decide not to do anything, not after all charges are dropped, but as soon as it is humanly possible to load them to YouTube. The videos are public property, paid for by tax dollars, and inform the public far better than fictional press releases ever will.

Sadly, the Taylor video was not the only video being concealed by police and prosecutors. Below we will include a list of every police violence video that we know exists that people in power refuse to release.

In the comments section, please add more links and details and we will update this post to include them.

Natasha McKenna was killed by police in Fairfax County, Virginia, on February 3. The police have confirmed that a video exists but refuse to release it.

Matthew Ajibade was killed by law enforcement on January 1 in Savannah, Georgia. The police have confirmed a video exists but refuse to release it.

Laquan McDonald was shot 16 times and killed by Chicago police on October 20, 2014. His family received $5 million in a settlement, but officials refuse to release the video of his killing. It has since been reported that police deleted 100 minutes of video from a nearby Burger King.

Ernest Satterwhite was shot and killed by police in South Carolina, but police refuse to release the dashcam footage.

Jonathan Ferrell was shot and killed by a police officer in Charlotte, North Carolina, but police refuse to release the video.

Kashad Ashford was killed by New Jersey police, but they refuse to release the video.

Lawrence Graham III was shot—apprently three times in the back—and killed by police in Fayetteville, North Carolina, but police refuse to release the video.

Ricardo Diaz Zeferino was completely unarmed when police in Gardena, California, shot and killed him, but they refuse to release the video. His family was given a $4.5 million wrongful death settlement.

Brandon Tate Brown was shot and killed by police in Philadelphia in December 2014, but officials refuse to release several videos of the shooting.

If you know of any additional cases in which police refuse to release videos, please post them in the comments section below or email them to shaun@dailykos.com and we will add them to the list.

ORIGINALLY POSTED TO SHAUNKING ON THU JUN 04, 2015 AT 08:47 AM PDT.

ALSO REPUBLISHED BY BARRIERS AND BRIDGES, POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP, AND DAILY KOS.

Slick

Bastard

Well, now we know the answer.

And then there's this guy....................

Man ran fake DUI checkpoint while drunk: cops

SOMERSET, Pa. (AP) — Police say a man who set up a drunken-driving checkpoint complete with road flares while pretending to be a Pennsylvania state trooper was drunk.

Troopers say 19-year-old Logan Shaulis, of Somerset, parked his vehicle diagonally across state Route 601 and set up road flares at about 4 a.m. Saturday.

A motorist who stopped says Shaulis claimed he was a trooper and demanded to see a driver’s license, registration and insurance papers.

When real troopers arrived, police say Shaulis tried to hand a BB pistol to the car’s passenger and said, “I can’t get caught with this.”

He faces charges including drunken driving, impersonating a public servant and unlawful restraint. He remained jailed Tuesday. Online court records don’t list an attorney for him.

A preliminary hearing is set for June 9.

This is direct result of Penis issues. Parents beat down their boys, the boys grow up with "Short penis syndrome" and become cops and try to prove to themselves that the don't hav penis issues and then they kill people

Graphic Body Cam Footage Shows Killer Cop as He Murders an Innocent Unarmed Man

By Matt Agorist on June 3, 2015

Salt Lake City, UT — On August 11, 2014 Dillon Taylor was gunned down in broad daylight by Officer Bron Cruz.

The confrontation happened because Cruz confused Taylor with a possible criminal in the area.

Taylor, his brother, and his cousin were exiting a 7-Eleven in an area where police were searching for a suspect who had allegedly been waving a gun around.  These uninvolved young men allegedly matched the description.

When the three men exited the convenience store they were surrounded by officers and ordered to show their hands.  Two of the men stopped and complied, Dillon Taylor, listening to music, kept walking.

Barely 40 seconds go by from the time Dillon is approached until he is shot by Cruz.

The body cam footage was released in September of last year, however, it stopped just after the shots were fired. Apparently the department did not want you to see what happened after as the full video was not released until this week. It shows the disturbing moments before and after this innocent man was gunned down by police.

“He couldn’t hear them, so he just kept walking. Then … they had guns pointed at his face. That’s when he turned off the music,” Taylor’s brother Jerrail Taylor told the SLC Tribune. “I saw them point guns at my brother’s face, and I knew what was going to happen.”

One officer told Taylor to get on the ground, while another told him to put his hands on his head.

“He got confused, he went to pull up his pants to get on the ground, and they shot him,” Jerrail Taylor said.

A report by the Daily Kos provides a detailed breakdown of the 7-minute video:

Now that the full video has been released, it’s disturbingly clear that nothing about this police shooting was justified. Nothing at all.

At 0:17, Officer Bron Cruz gets out of his vehicle. You will notice people confused by his presence.

At 0:22, Officer Cruz walks past two men who were friends with Dillon Taylor.

At 0:24, Officer Cruz walks behind Taylor, who has on a white T-shirt and is listening to music.

At 0:33, we see the officer has his gun drawn and is yelling at Taylor, who’s holding his sagging pants up and does not appear to hear Cruz.

At 0:36, the officer shoots Taylor. It would be fatal.

Starting at 0:41, you will notice the headphone cord coming out of Taylor’s pocket.

At 0:48, you will see that the headphones were clearly going up to Taylor’s ears.

At 0:52, the officer asks Dillon to “give me your hands,” but Taylor is already near death. His friends begin screaming and crying in the background.

At 1:03, the officer handcuffs Taylor.

At 1:48, the officer turns Taylor over, the headphones are visible, and the officer states “it’s clear”—meaning that Taylor was actually unarmed.

At 2:54, the officer turns Taylor completely over, keeping him handcuffed, and begins talking to him and trying to get him to talk. Taylor appears nearly dead and is completely covered in blood.

At 4:56, the officer is rummaging through Taylor’s pockets instead of providing any first aid.

It seems that after the officer discovered Taylor was unarmed, he pretended to care and provided a nice show for his body cam. However, he never once attempted to simply apply pressure to the gaping hole in Taylor’s chest.

WARNING: The video below is graphic and disturbing.

Does this actually surprise anyone? Fairfax attorney who faced firing over Geer case will stay employed after all

I was wrong. This isn't about the arrogance and brutality of the Fairfax County Police, this is about the COMPLETE inability of   Sharon Bulova and her mob on the Board of Supervisors to their jobs.

You get the government you deserve.  

Documents show that Tianti counseled the Fairfax police to withhold internal affairs files from the county prosecutor investigating the August 2013 shooting of John Geer. Geer was killed, according to four cops on the scene, while his hands were in the air.

Fairfax attorney who faced firing over Geer case will stay employed after all

By Antonio Olivo June 1   

The Fairfax County deputy county attorney who faced being fired over how she handled a case involving the police shooting of an unarmed man will keep her job after all, officials said Monday.

Cynthia L. Tianti had been placed on administrative leave in March in the wake of a public outcry over several aspects of the investigation into the 2013 shooting of John Geer.

On Monday, a lawyer representing County Attorney David P. Bobzien in the termination proceedings said Tianti will keep her job, but will focus only on matters related to the county Community Services Board, which provides services for people with mental illnesses and substance abuse problems.

“She is assigned to handle Community Service Board matters exclusively,” Sharon Pandak said.

Bobzien declined to comment. Tianti did not respond to an interview request.

Sharon Bulova (D), chairman of the County Board of Supervisors, said the county decided not to fire Tianti to “avoid litigation and a challenge to termination . . . She will not be working in the area that involves police issues.”

E-mails obtained by The Washington Post show that Tianti counseled Fairfax police to withhold internal affairs files from the county prosecutor investigating the shooting, which occurred during a response to a domestic dispute at Geer’s Springfield townhouse.

The county attorney’s office also did not tell supervisors that prosecutor Raymond F. Morrogh had requested a meeting with Bulova and the rest of the board to discuss the case. Several board members pushed for Bobzien and Tianti to be fired after learning they had been kept out of the loop.

Bobzien agreed to retire in June 2016 — nine months earlier than he had planned — and initiated a reorganization of his staff that included eliminating Tianti’s position. On Monday, Supervisor Pat Herrity (R-Springfield) expressed frustration that Tianti would remain on the county payroll — and said supervisors had not been informed about the decision.

“This is probably another case where I question the judgment of the county attorney,” Herrity said.

Bulova, who created an ad-hoc police commission to deal with some of the questions raised by the Geer investigation, said she hopes to move past the controversy sparked by the case.

“While this situation has been disappointing and frustrating, I think we’re going to see some positive changes result from it,” she said.

Antonio covers government, politics and other regional issues in Fairfax County. He worked in Los Angeles, New York and Chicago before joining the Post in September of 2013.

Staff writer Tom Jackman contributed to this report.

Implications of Rodriguez v. U.S. on traffic stops, Virginia law

Implications of Rodriguez v. U.S. on traffic stops, Virginia law

(as originally published on Virginia Lawyers Weekly on May 27, 2015)

By Rob Poggenklass, Tony Dunn Legal Fellow

Generic traffic stopA new Fourth Amendment decision by the United States Supreme Court may significantly alter traffic stop interactions with state and local law enforcement in Virginia.  The case has also abrogated two decisions by the Virginia Court of Appeals, paving the way for new suppression arguments by criminal defense attorneys.

In Rodriguez v. United States,1 the court considered whether an officer, having completed a valid traffic stop, could extend the encounter for a few more minutes to pursue a criminal investigation. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had held that the officer’s seven- or eight-minute delay – which allowed him to employ his canine – constituted a permissible, “de minimis intrusion on Rodriguez’s personal liberty.”2

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court reversed. The Court had held a decade earlier (over Justice Ginsburg’s dissent) that a dog sniff did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search.3 But while the facts of Rodriguez include a canine, the decision hinges on two other points: (1) the initial stop for a traffic infraction and (2) the officer’s extension of that stop to pursue a criminal investigation.

Some traffic stops are better characterized as Terry stops4 because they are based on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.5 But many stops, including the one in Rodriguez, are made ostensibly because a civil traffic infraction has occurred. The 8th Circuit and the Virginia Court of Appeals have allowed officers to pursue criminal investigations during stops for traffic infractions. In Rodriguez, the Courtputs the focus back on traffic safety by explaining, “On-scene investigation into other crimes, however, detours from that mission.”6

Recent Virginia Court of Appeals case law demonstrates how that court has strayed from Fourth Amendment principles in the traffic stop context. In Coleman v. Commonwealth,7 a Chesterfield County officer stopped a car for an inoperative license plate light, a civil traffic infraction. After running a warrant check, the officer noticed that a passenger in the car had a recent felony drug arrest. This prompted the officer to pursue a drug investigation that took between 10 and 12 minutes and led to Coleman’s arrest for possession with intent to distribute marijuana.

Citing its own precedent and a case from the 8th Circuit, the Virginia Court of Appeals found that “an officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by asking a few questions about matters unrelated to the traffic violation, even if this conversation briefly extends the length of the detention.”8 The officer’s 10- to 12-minute detour into a drug investigation cannot survive the U.S. Supreme Court’s principal holding in Rodriguez: “Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.” Coleman has been abrogated.

The rationale for Coleman came from a case decided a year earlier and on much closer facts. A Virginia Beach officer stopped Gloria Ellis for an inoperative brake light.9 Intending to give her a summons, the officer requested her license and registration and ran a warrant check. While waiting for the record check, the officer recalled that Ellis had a narcotics history. The officer walked to Ellis’ vehicle and asked if she would consent to a search of the vehicle. Ellis said no. He asked if he needed to get a drug dog and Ellis said go ahead and get the dog. This interaction, which occurred solely because the officer chose to pursue a criminal investigation during a civil traffic stop, took approximately one minute.10 On the walk back to his car, the officer called for a canine unit, which arrived before he could complete the traffic summons. Following a canine alert, Ellis consented to a search of her person, where drugs were found.

Though Ellis is a closer case factually than Coleman, its holding11 cannot survive Rodriguez. Brief extensions of stops for civil traffic infractions are not de minimis intrusions on a person’s liberty. They are Fourth Amendment seizures, not based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

The Rodriguez case should also empower drivers and passengers to assert their rights during traffic stops. Officer Struble pulled over Dennys Rodriguez because he saw Rodriguez’s car “briefly veer” onto the shoulder before returning to the road.12 When Officer Struble asked Rodriguez if he would mind if Struble’s canine performed a walk-around of Rodriguez’s vehicle, Rodriguez said no. This prompted the officer to call for backup, further delaying a stop based on a traffic infraction. From the time Struble stopped Rodriguez until a warning was issued, 19 minutes had elapsed. Rodriguez’s assertion – saying “no” to Officer Struble’s drug investigation – forced the Fourth Amendment issue and increased his chances for victory on appeal.

After Rodriguez,the battle lines for argument at suppression hearings have shifted.13 In cases that involve stops for civil traffic infractions, defendants can argue that questioning unrelated to the initial reason for the stop unnecessarily prolonged the interaction. A record check is OK.14 But every minute spent by law enforcement pursuing a criminal investigation during one of these traffic stops is a detour that implicates the Fourth Amendment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENDNOTES

1 Rodriguez v. United States, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 2807 (Apr. 21, 2015).

 2 United States v. Rodriguez, 741 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir. 2014).

 3 Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).

 4 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

 5 See, e.g., Folly v. Commonwealth, 2014 Va. App. LEXIS 273 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2014) (upholding an investigatory traffic stop based on an officer’s reasonable suspicion that a driver was in possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute).

 6 Rodriguez at *14.

 7 2009 Va. App. LEXIS 431 (Va. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2009).

 8 Id. at *7 (quoting Ellis v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 220, 227 (Va. Ct. App. 2008)).

 9 Ellis v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 220, 223 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).

 10 Id.

 11 See supra note 8 and accompanying text.

 12 United States v. Rodriguez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123426, *2 (D. Neb. Aug. 30, 2012).

 13 Before Rodriguez, the Virginia Court of Appeals drew its own line at the moment when an officer produces a ticket or a warning. See Commonwealth v. Crooks, 2012 Va. App. LEXIS 364 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2012).

 14 Rodriguez v. United States, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 2807, *12 (Apr. 21, 2015).

How much you want to bet the cop gets away with it?

This is not an actual bet, if were the Fairfax County Police would laid down odds and when they lost.....they would shoot me and....THEY WOULD BLAME A CAR DOOR FOR THE SHOOTING

AND

THEY WOULD GET AWAY WITH IT

So once again, you wanna bet this cop gets away with threatening these kids?

Anyway, on to the story.....................................  

Cop Caught on Video Telling Teen ‘If You Fuck With Me, I’m Going To Break Your Legs’

“Can you tell me why I’m being arrested?” Hamza Jeylani asks an officer in a video captured on his cell phone.

“Because I feel like arresting you,” the officer, who the American Civil Liberties Union identifies as Officer Rod Webber, replies in the short video.

This exchange happens after Webber calmly threatens Jeylani, who does not appear to be offering any resistance whatsoever. “Plain and simple,” Webber tells Jeylani, “if you fuck with me I’m going to break your legs before you even get a chance to run.”

According to the ACLU, Jeylani and four of his friends — all of whom are black teenagers — were pulled over after making a U-turn in a parking lot in South Minneapolis. 

The four young men had been playing basketball at a YMCA. Despite Officer Webber’s statement that Jeylani was arrested because the cop felt like arresting him, the police claim that they suspected the four youth of stealing the car they were driving.

Jeylani, however, says that the driver of the car had documents showing that he owned the car. And the ACLU adds that “police said the stolen car they were after was a blue Honda Civic. The teenagers, however, were driving a blue Toyota Camry.”

Not all cops are humorless

Ever get the feeling your not part of the group?

Surprise!

OUCH!

The greatest dangers to liberty

“The greatest dangers to liberty 

  lurk in the insidious encroachment 

  by men of zeal, well meaning 

  but without understanding.”—  Louis D. Brandeis

Power

“Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts… perhaps the fear of a loss of power.”

                                                                                                             John Steinbeck

Well let' see, we have weasel and a thief on the Board of Supervisors so I suppose this guy will fit right in

Fairfax County School Board Member, County Board 

Candidate Co-Founder of Quack, Anti-Vaxxer Group

by: lowkell

Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 17:30:00 PM EDT

WHY HASN'T THE LOCAL MEDIA REPORTED ANY OF THIS?

The race to succeed Gerry Hyland (D) as Fairfax County Supervisor from the Mt. Vernon magisterial district is off and running, and there are four Democrats in the field. I don't support anyone in this race as of yet (and may never), but I've started looking into the candidates, one of whom is Fairfax County School Board member Dan Storck. According to Storck's website, he is "Co-Founder and Managing Member, National Integrated Health Associates." What is National Integrated Health Associates, you ask? I had never heard of it before (and barely knew a thing about its "co-founder and managing member," Dan Storck), so I checked its website. Here's what I found.

*The company claims to be "leaders in holistic integrative medicine and biological dentistry." Sounds innocuous enough, but start poking around the website, and you quickly get a different impression.

*In fact, these folks are vociferous "anti-vaxxers," who among other things tie vaccination to autism. See their page on vaccinations for more on this dangerous pseudo-science. Note that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, "There is no link between vaccines and autism." Period. Also, just for emphasis, "Vaccine ingredients do not cause autism."

*Despite the overwhelming benefit to humanity of vaccines, and the pandemics that would occur (which would kill untold numbers of people) if we stopped vaccinating people, the National Integrated Health Associates website states, "We support the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) effort and their accumulated expertise and information about vaccinations - the risks and benefits of vaccinations."

*The "National Vaccine Information Center," as this article in Slate explains:

...is a group that has an official-sounding name, one that might make you think their message is trustworthy.

Except, not so much. Or at all. Or really just the opposite.

NVIC is an antivax group, plain and simple. Despite hugely overwhelming tsunami-level amounts of evidence showing no link between vaccines and autism, they still think there is one. They go on and on about "vaccine injuries", yet actual severe side effects from vaccines are very rare, especially when you realize that many millions of vaccines are given every year. The NVIC relies on anecdotes of injuries as evidence, but that's very dangerous thinking. Stories and personal observations are a good place to start-it's how you might notice a connection between two things-but it's not where you end. You must apply rigorous testing to your ideas, so that you can make sure you're not seeing a connection where none exists.

Not good.

*Even worse: on the National Integrated Health Associates website, there's a page of links to all kinds of dangerous, pseudo-scientific nonsense. For instance, a document entitled "Seeking to understand: ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorder)" argues absurdly that "only you can be your child's best doctor." No, sorry, that's what all those years of Medical School are for, and why we go to the doctor for diagnosis and treatment, not to Dr. Mom or Dr. Dad.

*The National Integrated Health Associates website further claims, outrageously: "welfare moms and school systems get extra money for medicating their kids - what a system!" Whoa -- "welfare moms?" The whole vaccination thing is a way for school systems and "welfare moms" to get money? Is this a bad joke?

*The website also asserts, completely falsely, that "Autism, ADHD, allergies and asthma (4 A's) and all the other brain disorders are due to neuro-immune dys-function due to too much neurotoxins and the inability of the child to adequately detox or remove these harmful toxins." It explicitly blames, again completely falsely, the "rapid rise in the vaccination schedules for infants in the last 30 years" for everything from autism to allergies to "leaky gut" to "Lyme, Candida, Herpes virus, Strep, staph, tetanus botulinum, mycotoxins from mold and others." Alrighty then...

*One of the National Integrated Health Associates' doctors was disciplined by the Maryland State Board of Physicians for having "incompetently managed 12 significantly ill patients." This same doctor previously had been "convicted and sentenced to two years' probation for marketing an unapproved medical device in interstate commerce." In addition, he "signed a consent agreement with the Maryland board under which he admitted to practicing medicine without a license and would pay a $15,000 fine." Oh, and New York State suspended this guy's license for basically being a total quack, practicing something called "orthomolecular medicine," which his website claimed (falsely) were "effective against ADD & ADHD; aging and longevity; alcohol and drug problems; allergies; Alzheimer's; arthritis; asthma; immune and autoimmune disorders; cancer; chronic cardiovascular problems and risk factor screening; chronic fatigue; chronic illness; chronic pain; depression; detoxification; diabetes; fibromyalgia; heart and vascular disease; heavy metal toxicity; hormonal problems; intestinal problems; lifestyle health issues; men's health problems; mental health problems; migraine; neurological disorders; osteoporosis; Parkinson's disease; sinusitis; smoking; sports nutritional medicine; and women's health problem." Craaaazy stuff.

We could go on all day here, but the bottom line is clear: the National Integrated Health Associates, co-founded and managed by Fairfax County School Board member (and current County Board candidate) Dan Storck, is a quack organization which strongly promotes dangerous "anti-vaxxer" pseudoscience. Why "dangerous?"  Because, obviously, failure to vaccinate children makes not just the unvaccinated children more vulnerable to potentially life-threatening diseases, but also other people (e.g., older people whose immunity might be compromised for whatever reason) as well. As this article puts it: "An epidemic of vaccination skepticism - largely based on unfounded and discredited anti-vaccine beliefs - has contributed to the growing public health crisis."

So here's the thing: Dan Storck is entitled to whatever beliefs he wants to hold, but for a member of the school board in Virginia's largest county to be peddling this dangerous, anti-vaccination pseudoscience seems to be relevant information that parents and voters might want to be aware of. In talking to people yesterday and today, what I'm hearing is that the public has NOT been aware of Dan Storck's anti-vaccination views. Perhaps if they had known, they might have reelected him anyway, but the issue apparently never came up, so we'll never know.

Anyway, now Storck's seeking a promotion to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, and it seems like voters should have this information before they go to the polls this June to select their Democratic nominee (Storck or one of the other Democratic candidates - Tim Sargeant, Jack Dobbyn and Candice Bennett) for this position. At that time, voters can make an informed decision as to who they want representing them on the Fairfax County Board, possibly for many years to come...

P.S. Also note that Storck's company believes herbs can cure Lyme Disease, that fluoridated water is heinous, that mandatory vaccines may violate your civil liberties, that wearing a bra or putting on deoderant can cause breast cancer, that kids with cancer shouldn't get chemotherapy, that women shouldn't get mammograms because they are worthless (they link to this article), that measles is "transmitted by the vaccinated," and...ok, I think you get the idea.