Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Electro-shocked for Walking Dogs

Photo from Copblock.org

Folks. THIS is where we are! I saw the headline on Drudge which led to the San Fransisco Chronicle.

We must get the picture folks. We must get it through our heads now.  The Police State is NOT here to be our friend nor the keep the peace. Thugs with badges are commissioned to beat us into submission.

According to this story at sfgate.com, Mr. Hesterberg was walking his two small dogs on a sunny Sunday afternoon. He didn't have his dogs on a leash. This might be an infraction, but hardly the kind of crime which warrants electrocution. He was approached and detained by a Park Rangerette who remains unnamed. Hesterberg claimed he wasn't carrying any form of identification on him. (I don't either when I'm out doing PT) Witnesses are reported to have seen the man ask why he was being detained. He asked several times and received no answer, so he began to walk away. That action is perfectly reasonable.

I said "reasonable". If a Law Imposement Officer cannot articulate a reason for your detention, then he is detaining you without cause. As he began to go about his business, bothering no one and damaging no property, he was hit with an electro-shock weapon.

From the piece on sfgate.com, "Hesterberg, who said he didn't have identification with him, allegedly gave the ranger a false name, Levitt said." Note how he allegedly gave a false name. Allegedly? The Law Imposement Officerette doesn't have to prove anything. She only alleges and it is assumed to be true. If she makes such an allegation in court, and it cannot be sustained, she can withdraw it, and not fear being charged with the FELONY of perjury. We don't know what Hesterberg told the Rangerette. We only have her allegation.

Again from the sfgate.com piece, " Hesterberg... was arrested on suspicion of failing to obey a lawful order, having dogs off-leash and knowingly providing false information..."

The crime articulated was "Suspicion of failing to obey a lawful order"? What the freaking fuck is that? "Having dogs off-leash" may be a valid citation, but if the Officer/Rangerette could not specify to Mr. Hesterberg what the offense was, he no lawful duty to give her his name. That part comes down to his word against hers. Now, at Common Law, the burden of proof is on the person using force to detain the other, to prove that force was justified. Would you care to wager as to the presumption of correctness when Mr. Hesterberg goes to court?

Again from sfgate.com, "Witnesses said the use of a stun gun and the arrest seemed excessive for someone walking two small dogs off leash.",

and  "It was really scary," said Michelle Babcock, who said she had seen the incident as she and her husband were walking their two border collies. "I just felt so bad for him.",

and, "Babcock said Hesterberg had repeatedly asked the ranger why he was being detained. She didn't answer him, Babcock said.",

and finally, "He just tried to walk away. She never gave him a reason," Babcock said.
The ranger shot Hesterberg in the back with her shock weapon as he walked off, Babcock said.
"We were like in disbelief," she said. "It didn't make any sense."

It sounds to me as though Mr. Hersterberg was perfectly justified in walking away. Ultimately, the charge is "Contempt of Cop".

EVERY free man should be outraged. Alas, this has become all too common. The Cops presume it was the right thing to do because it was the cops what dunnit.

The court will presume the Officerette in question was doing right unless she is challenged vigorously and made to present evidence to support her allegation. Your neighbors have been conditioned to react viscerally to your arrest with fear and submission, averted eyes, and shame to have known you.

Folks remember this when you serve on a jury. You as a juror (that "We the people..." thingy), have all the power you need to exonerate Mr. Hesterberg. Stand up and say "NO!"

Say "NO!", when some poor soul is prosecuted for possessing a small amount of marijuana.

Say "No!" when any man stands before the Law for any "crime" which is in essence malum prohibitum.

Will we live as Free Men, or as serfs? Are we owners of our Republic of subjects of it? Shall we be remembered as Spartans or helots? Folks, this is NOT freedom. Our forefathers would weep in shame at what has become of the Country they entrusted to our care.

No comments: