We received a request via Twitter today seeking help identifying the Oklahoma City Police officer that arrested Floyd Wallace Jr. yesterday. We have narrowed the possibilities down to two people by reviewing videos, searching public records, and searching the internet. Those two people are Sgt. Yancy Walt Forbes and Sgt. Ezra Boone Forbes. At this time we think that the one involved is probably Yancy Forbes, but we would like hold off on making a conclusion until we see more evidence. The official body camera footage released by the OKCPD is embedded below this article. It begins with footage from the body camera of Sgt. Miller (badge number 1582). Sgt. Miller talks to Wallace for a few minutes. At 6:15 the text "Sgt. Forbes arrives on scene" appears on the bottom of the screen and you can see a second officer approaching. The point of view then changes to Sgt. Forbes' body camera. From that we can conclude that the officer in question is a sergeant with the last name Forbes. We searched online payroll records for OKCPD personnel named Forbes and found two results listed as OKCPD sergeants (https://ift.tt/3eHcxoA). When searching the internet we found a 2013 article about worker's compensation mentioning Yancy Forbes (https://ift.tt/2QCgSkX). It says that Forbes had torn his rotator cuff struggling with a suspect and expected to work for at least 15 more years. It also says that he was waiting to see a judge while wearing his uniform. One picture captured Forbes from a distance. We think the individual in that photo bears a striking resemblance to the man in the video, but cannot say for sure that it is the same person. Public records reveal that Yancy Forbes is a 47 year old Republican living in Ninnekah. We found several email addresses that could be linked to him. Those addresses are yancyforbes[at]gmail.com, yancy.forbes[at]gmail.com, yancy.forbes[at[netscape.net, and yforbes[at]msn.com. We are listing those only because we think they could be useful for people seeking answers in this case. We also have a residential address, but we are not publishing it at this time because we don't consider this incident serious enough to warrant that. Public records reveal that Ezra Forbes is a 35 year old Democrat living in Yukon. We found email addresses and social media profiles that might be linked to him. The email address ez_stick[at]hotmail.com is linked to this LinkedIn account (https://ift.tt/2PHI4hE) which he appears to have abandoned in 2013 shortly before his name was added to the OKCPD pension program (see PDF icon above this article). We have a residential address for home, but are not publishing it for the same reason we are not publishing the other Forbes' address at this time. Based on this information we think that the officer in the video is probably Yancy Forbes, but cannot say for sure. A photo of Ezra Forbes would be extremely useful in this case. Right now we believe that the officer identified as Yancy Forbes in the 2013 article about workers compensation could be the same person in the Floyd Wallace video. Every look we get at the video is low resolution and without a good close up, so guessing his age is difficult. Judging by his build, hairline, and gait we think he is a middle aged male more likely to be in his 40s than his 30s. On the other hand men in their late 40s typically have graying hair and we do not see any graying hair in this video. Is This Arrest Justified? We don't think that Floyd Wallace Jr. did anything to justify bothering him in the manner that he was bothered. They say they got a 911 call of some guy lurking in the bushes near a jail, but a call like that doesn't prove anything. When they arrived he was just walking down the sidewalk. He never did anything indicating intent to commit a crime. The officers did have every right to tell him not to trespass on jail property, but treating him like a suspect was inappropriate. They should have just said something like "hey man, just so you know, we got a complaint about someone in the bushes at the jail, you can't go there." That would have been sufficient to inform anyone in the area that they are not allowed to trespass on jail property. At that point they should have just left Wallace alone. He had every right to stand on the sidewalk, scratch his back, put his hands in his pockets, and argue. To Forbes' credit, Wallace does get really close to him the moment before he is shoved, taken to the ground, and arrested. Forbes can certainly argue that Wallace was uncomfortably and annoyingly close, but at that point Wallace's behavior would indicate to a reasonable person that he was just filming the officers. He was basically giving them a First Amendment Audit which they failed miserably. We suspect that this Floyd Wallace Jr. might be the same Floyd Wallace who was featured in The New York Times earlier this month for his work with Omaha Cop Watch (https://ift.tt/3eHcxVC). That article described a black man standing on a sidewalk filming police officers and talking to them in a similar way. Those cops arrested him for refusing to identify himself. We think he went to Oklahoma City to do the same thing. #yancyforbes #ezraforbes #floydwallace #freespeechsource https://copblaster.com/blast/35519/which-sgt-forbes-arrested-floyd-wallace-in-oklahoma-city-yesterday
The Oregon House of Representatives has passed a bill that if approved by the senate, signed by the governor, and enforced would violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In response we have created a directory of members that voted in favor of the bill which contains information about them that they are attempting to stop people from posting on the internet. House Bill 3047 would allow people to seek injunctive relief, economic damages, non-economic damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees from anyone that discloses personal information about them without their consent. The bill defines "personal information" as "(A) The plaintiffs home address, personal email address, personal phone number or social security number; (B) Contact information for the plaintiff's employer; (C) Contact information for a family member of the plaintiff; (D) Photographs of the plaintiff's children; or (E) Identification of the school that the plaintiff's children attend." We have no objection to the part about social security numbers due to the ability of identity thieves to open accounts in other people's names with them. We also have no objection to the prohibition on information regarding third parties related to the primary target of the disclosure because we simply don't believe in posting information about people's relatives even thought that is free speech. The other types of information often play essential roles in the public criticism of others. Federal courts have struck down similar bills in recent years because people have a First Amendment right to disseminate that information, especially if they are doing it for the purpose of political protest or public criticism. We have written a series of posts about the chief sponsors of the bill which discuss the applicable case law making it clear that this bill violates the First Amendment. Most of our legal analysis can be found in the post about Bill Post (https://ift.tt/3t3i11L). You can find more references in our posts about Janelle Bynum (https://ift.tt/3t3i11L) and Brad Witt (https://ift.tt/2PtrLVz). HB 3047 does have a clause which limits its applicability solely to disclosures done "with the intent to stalk, harass or injure the plaintiff." We have no objection to the clauses against stalking or injuring people because they refer to the crimes of stalking (https://ift.tt/3eFe9Pz) and assault (https://ift.tt/3eG7vIW). We take issue with the "harass" clause because it defines "harass" to include lawful conduct not covered by Oregon's harassment statute (https://ift.tt/2p5Cmny). HB 3047 defines "harass" as "subject[ing] another to severe emotional distress such that the individual experiences anxiety, fear, torment or apprehension" with a reasonable person standard requiring that "a reasonable person would be stalked, harassed or injured by the disclosure." Our objection is based on the fact that people have a First Amendment right to publish true facts about other people with the intent to cause them anxiety, fear, torment, and apprehension unless the anxiety, fear, torment, and apprehension is based on fear of bodily harm or a crime being committed against them. The bill sweeps so broadly that it allows anyone experiencing anxiety as a result of truthful information about themselves being posted online to censor authors simply because their criticisms include their home address, phone number, personal email address, or the contact information of their employer. All they must do is show by a preponderance of evidence (https://ift.tt/1LARXBH) that their anxiety is the intentional result of the author's writing. A preponderance of evidence only requires a plaintiff to convince a judge that there is greater than a 50% chance that the author intended to cause them anxiety. So, even if the plaintiff cannot prove for certain what was in the mind of the author they can still seek relief based on what they think the author probably intended. If this law survives constitutional challenges in the courts, which it will not, it would open the door for further legislation banning the posting of anything intended to cause anyone anxiety for any reason. Here are two hypothetical examples of constitutionally protected speech that could form the basis for a successful claim under HB 3047: 1) A police officer is caught on camera beating an unarmed black man as he lay helpless on the ground in a prone position. In response, activists post his home address online for the purpose of persuading demonstrators to picket peacefully outside of his home. That officer files a lawsuit claiming severe emotional distress caused by the fear of future protests at his house. 2) A conservative journalist with a large following on social media decides to speak out against leftists that have been getting arrested at protests. He starts posting their mugshots on his social media accounts along with other types of information sent to him by his followers such as where they work and how to contact their employers. The activists file a lawsuit claiming to have suffered sever emotional distress due to anxiety, fear, and apprehension that they will soon be fired. These examples show why HB 3047 has bi-partisan support. When the summer of 2020 began, the right was outraged because the left kept doxxing their police officers. When the summer ended, the left was outraged because the right kept doxxing their activists. Police officers said they were afraid to do their jobs. Activists claimed they were afraid to attend protests. Neither side cared about the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to post an officer's address and encourage others to peaceful protest at his home, but it also protects the right to post mugshots of anyone arrested at that protest along with information about the arrestees such as where they work. HB 3047 cannot be used to put a stop to either activity without violating the First Amendment. As we said earlier, we provided links to our legal arguments in other posts earlier. The best summary of those arguments can be found in a 2017 decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (https://ift.tt/3ns5lAm). That decision upheld the right to post home addresses of government officials on the internet, condition the removal of their addresses on their job performance, and threaten to do the same should others perform in a similar way. You will notice that the law at issue in that case and cases referenced were not nearly as broad as HB 3047. We will not legitimize this bill with our cooperation. If sued under it we will immediately seek declaratory relief in federal court and utilize our offshore infrastructure to avoid censorship. American courts don't have the authority to regulate content on servers in foreign countries, so we can host what we wish over the objection of American courts despite living in the United States. Furthermore, we will conduct comprehensive background checks of anyone that attempts to censor us using the bill, any judge that issues a ruling in their favor, and any officer that assists them with the enforcement of such an order. The results of the background checks will be published in full without redaction. Furthermore, we will create a home address directory identical to this one for the Oregon State Senate should they vote in favor of HB 3047. On the other hand, if they do not vote in favor of HV 3047 we are willing to take this directory down because the Senate would be righting the wrong of the House. All of the information contained in this directory was initially disclosed by the state of Oregon itself or local municipalities within their borders. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that people have a legal right to copy information made public by the government and share that information with other people. Most of the information can be found on the Oregon Secretary of State website simply by typing in the name of the representative you are looking for (https://ift.tt/3u5lQ8b). Other information came from an online background check service that we subscribe to and their information comes from pubic records. The state of Oregon can claim that their legislators have the right to regulate the spread of this information simply by gathering in a room and saying "aye" but the truth is that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits them from enforcing such claims. CHRISTINE RENEE DRAZAN 20676 S SOUTH END RD, OREGON CITY, OR 97045-9790 TERESA ALONSO LEON 3009 OXFORD ST, WOODBURN, OR 97071-4559 SHELLY RENEE BOSHART 35195 KNOX BUTTE RD E, ALBANY, OR 97322-9535 JANELLE SOJOURNER BYNUM 14011 SE ALTA VISTA DR, HAPPY VALLEY, OR 97086-8006 JAMI JOLENE CATE 37251 GORE DR, LEBANON, OR 97355-9608 MAXINE ELIZABETH DEXTER 1854 NW ASPEN AVE, PORTLAND, OR 97210-1211 JULIANNE ELIZABETH FAHEY 1831 TODD ST, EUGENE, OR 97405-5525 DACIA JILL GRAYBER 5722 SW GARDEN HOME RD, PORTLAND, OR 97219-3132 KENNETH DEAN HELM 3890 SW 96TH AVE, PORTLAND, OR 97225-2519 ZACHARY TRAVIS HUDSON 755 SE BEAVER CREEK LN TROUTDALE, OR 97060 RICHARD E LEWIS 808 APRIL LN, SILVERTON, OR 97381-2284 PAM J MARSH 112 ROSE AVE, MEDFORD, OR 97501-2557 MARK WILLIS MEEK 17082 STANHELMA DR, GLADSTONE, OR 97027-1229 LILY NICOLE MORGAN 781 NE 11TH ST, GRANTS PASS, OR 97526-1655 RONALD HAMOR NOBLE 6495 NE MINERAL SPRINGS RD, CARLTON, OR 97111-9641 MARK JOSEPH OWENS 42136 CRANE CEMETARY LN, BURNS, OR 97720-9520 WILLIAM RONALD POST 5135 LACEY ST N, SALEM, OR 97303-4004 RACHEL BETH PRUSAK 2688 MARK LN, WEST LINN, OR 97068-2414 MICHAEL JEFFREY REARDON 12045 SE FOSTER PL, PORTLAND, OR 97266-4968 Lisa Reynolds 2442 NW Westover Rd, 201 Portland, OR 97210 ANDREA ROSE SALINAS 42 AQUINAS ST, LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035-1204 SHERI LEE SCHOUTEN 10285 SW GULL PL, BEAVERTON, OR 97007-6188 DAVID BROCK SMITH 2858 PORT ORFORD LOOP RD, PORT ORFORD, OR 97465-8584 DUANE ANTHONY STARK 588 NW SCENIC DR, GRANTS PASS, OR 97526-3454 KIMBERLY D WALLAN 200 S MODOC AVE, MEDFORD, OR 97504-7760 Marty L. Wilde 3390 Potter St Eugene, OR 97405 BRADLEY KING WITT 21740 LINDBERG RD, CLATSKANIE, OR 97016-2543 JOSEPH JOHN ZIKA 135 NW 10TH ST, REDMOND, OR 97756-1739 BARBARA SMITH WARNER 2471 NE 51ST AVE, PORTLAND, OR 97213-2519 DANIEL GATELY BONHAM 1301 E 19TH ST, THE DALLES, OR 97058-3345 VIKKI KRISTINE IVERSON 1380 NE ROSEMONT ST, PRINEVILLE, OR 97754-1371 WLNSVEY ELIZABETH CAMPOS 6732 SW 180TH AVE, BEAVERTON, OR 97007-5291 BRIAN LEE CLEM 285 MILLER ST S, SALEM, OR 97302-4271 PAUL LYNN EVANS 744 MAIN ST E, MONMOUTH, OR 97361-1828 DAVID WILLIAM GOMBERG 7200 NE HIGHLAND RD, OTIS, OR 97368-9617 CEDRIC ROSS HAYDEN 38809 OLD PENGRA RD, FALL CREEK, OR 97438-9720 PAUL RICHARD HOLVEY 468 E 34TH AVE, EUGENE, OR 97405-3839 JASON SCOTT KROPF 1880 NW NEWPORT HILLS DR, BEND, OR 97703-1470 BARBARA LEE LEVY 31471 ANDREWS RD, ECHO, OR 97826-9056 JOHN D LIVELY 1186 W D ST, SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477-3519 SUSAN LBD DAVIS-MCLAIN 2510 MILLS LN, FOREST GROVE, OR 97116-1220 RAQUEL CONSUELO MOORE 1557 WEBSTER DR SE, SALEM, OR 97302-6406 NANCY LOUISE NATHANSON 2145 ASHBURY DR, EUGENE, OR 97408-4801 COURTNEY BROOK NERON 29160 SW BERGEN LN, WILSONVILLE, OR 97070-7692 ROBERT ANTHONY NOSSE 1712 SE 47TH AVE, PORTLAND, OR 97215-3206 KATHERINE KHANH PHAM 2635 SE 89TH AVE, PORTLAND, OR 97266-1403 KARIN ALICE POWER 11186 SE 31ST AVE, PORTLAND, OR 97222-6603 DANIEL ADAM RAYFIELD 463 NE CONIFER BLVD, CORVALLIS, OR 97330-4195 ERIC WERNER RESCHKE 404 MAIN ST STE 6, KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97601-6021 RICARDO RUIZ-MADRIGAL 1060 SE 190TH AVE, PORTLAND, OR 97233-5902 TAWNA DEE SANCHEZ 3435 NE LOMBARD CT, PORTLAND, OR 97211-7249 GREGORY VINCENT SMITH 190 ROCK ST, HEPPNER, OR 97836-7309 JANEEN ANNE SOLLMAN 306 NE 64TH CT, HILLSBORO, OR 97124-6918 ANDREA LEONOR VALDERRAMA 13632 SE MILL ST, PORTLAND, OR 97233-1761 SUZANNE R WEBER 314 MILLER AVE, TILLAMOOK, OR 97141-2521 ANNA KING WILLIAMS 2250 SHERMAN AVE, HOOD RIVER, OR 97031-1043 GERALD DUANE WRIGHT 210 THORTON OAR LN, REEDSPORT, OR 97467-9751 CHRISTINE KOTEK 7930 N WABASH AVE, PORTLAND, OR 97217-6038 #oregonhouse #freespeech #enemiesofliberty
The Pasquotank County Sheriff's Office (PCSO) has released the names of the deputies involved in the shooting of Andrew Brown Jr., but have not identified who fired the fatal shot. According to the PCSO three of the names released are those of officers that fired their weapons. Those names are: Investigator Daniel Meads Deputy Sheriff Robert Morgan Cpl. Aaron Lewellyn All three of them have been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation. The PCSO also released the names of four deputies that did not fire their weapons, but were at the scene. Those deputies were Lt. Steven Judd, Sgt. Michael Swindell, Sgt. Kenneth Bishop, and Sgt. Joel Lunsford. They remain on active duty. Pasquotank County Attorney R. Michael Cox still refuses to release body camera footage (https://ift.tt/3gFUYrq) and Judge Jeff Foster refused to force his hand, so if you want to know what happened you'll have to ask those involved. We found the following information about the shooters in public records: DANIEL RYAN MEADS 320 HARRIS RD, ELIZABETH CITY, NC 27909-7486 ROBERT DWAYNE MORGAN 527 LIONS CLUB RD, ELIZABETH CITY, NC 27909-7481 AARON SCOTT LEWELLYN 1265 SOUNDNECK RD, ELIZABETH CITY, NC 27909-7437 We found a PDF produced by the PCSO that lists names of known deputies on the NC Sheriff's website and are uploading that with this article (click on PDF icon above article). In it you will see that Daniel Meads is listed as D. Ryan Meads and Robert Morgan is listed as R. Dwayne Morgan. As always we ask that nobody use this information for any unlawful purpose. We encourage peacefully demonstrating at those locations or simply asking them if they have copies of the body cam footage. Do not damage property or injure anyone. We believe the images above to of Deputy Morgan. They were recovered from Google's cache after the website TheNCBeat.com posted an article naming Morgan as the shooter. The article was taken down. We believe that the author probably realized he jumped the gun naming Morgan as the killer because three deputies are named as shooters and the body cam footage has not been released. We will update this story as more information becomes available and we will likely add individual bios for each deputy, but so far we can only find images of Morgan. #danielmeads #robertmorgan #aaronlewellyn #andrewbrown
Janelle Bynum of the Oregon House of Representatives won a great victory in the fight for police reform this past week. She is the chief sponsor of House Bills 2513, 2936, 3059, and 3273. All of those bills are great. We believe that those bills will lead to better hiring practices by law enforcement agencies and that those hired will be held to higher standards. So, if we are so happy with her work why are we posting her personal information? We are posting her information because while she was doing those things she was also working to undermine our First Amendment rights by sponsoring House Bill 3047. HB 3047 will likely create a civil cause of action for people in Oregon courts against anyone that posts certain types of accurate information about them on CopBlaster.com. HB 3047 is an unconstitutional attack on our rights that we will not tolerate under any circumstances regardless of other things its supports have done lately. HB 3047 states that a plaintiff will have grounds to file a lawsuit for "improper disclosure of private information" if that person can show that the information was disclosed "with the intent to stalk, harass or injure the plaintiff." That does not sound unconstitutional on its face, but once the surface is scratched it reveals one of the worst attempts to silence speech that we have seen. The statue defines "harass" in a way that goes far beyond the legal definition of harassment under the state's criminal code (https://ift.tt/2p5Cmny). Under HB 3047 the term "harass" will include "severe emotional distress such that the individual experiences anxiety, fear, torment or apprehension that may or may not result in a physical manifestation of severe emotional distress or a mental health diagnosis and is protracted rather than merely trivial or transitory." That definition is so vague that it could cover any number of things regardless of whether or not the speech in question is protected by the First Amendment. It goes without saying that the First Amendment never protects speech intended to threaten bodily harm or incite criminal activity, but HB 3047 is not narrowly tailored to limit causes of action to just incidents involving unconstitutional speech such as true threats. People have a First Amendment right to disclose information about a person with the intent of causing them anxiety, fear of consequences other than being the victim of a crime, and apprehension of such things. The term "sever emotional distress" is subjective and opens doors for anyone claiming to have experienced severe anxiety. There is a reasonable person standard, so that could provide ammunition for defendants in cases where plaintiffs cry rivers of fake tears, but it is still vulnerable to the subjective opinions of jurors based on how severe they would consider the conduct if subject to it rather than remaining detached and objective. The state itself is almost always the initial discloser of information targeted by HB 3047. HB 3047 describes "personal information" as "The plaintiffs home address, personal email address, personal phone number or social security number." We have no objection to the prohibition on posting social security numbers because of identity theft risk, but federal courts have objected under certain circumstances. In 2010, the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of a website that criticized pubic records laws in Virginia by posting public land records obtained from the state that contained social security numbers of state legislators, see Ostergren v. Cuccinelli, 615 F.3d 263 (https://ift.tt/2SdFOQ7). The court concluded that "Virginia's failure to redact SSNs before placing land records online means that barring Ostergren's protected speech would not be narrowly tailored to Virginia's interest in protecting individual privacy." Virginia's Personal Information Privacy Act was overly broad because it did not distinguish between protected speech and privacy violations. The same is true of HB 3047 when it comes to home addresses, personal email addresses, and personal phone numbers. The state discloses that information in public records that are then aggregated by public records brokers and made available online. We were able to obtain Janelle Bynum's home address from such a broker. In our last post we covered the case law that supports our position that posting home addresses of government officials online to protest their actions is free speech and the state cannot punish people for disseminating information that the state itself made public (see https://ift.tt/3t3i11L). HB 3047 "is not narrowly tailored for the additional reason that it does not differentiate between acts that make public previously private information and those that make public information that is already publicly available. " See Publius v. Boyer-Vine (https://ift.tt/3ns5lAm). Bynum's unconstitutional intentions can be found in the first draft of HB 3047 which included " with the intent to harass, humiliate or injure." Later drafts replaced the word "humiliate" with "stalk" for an obvious reason. The First Amendment protects the right to post accurate information on the internet for the purpose of humiliating people. The word humiliate is so broad that most ordinary reasonable Americans would read the law and think of the First Amendment. Humiliate means "to reduce (someone) to a lower position in one's own eyes or others' eyes : to make (someone) ashamed or embarrassed" (https://ift.tt/32Xn759). People can be humiliated in any number of ways protected by the First Amendment for which personal information plays a role. Someone obviously told Bynum and Witt (https://ift.tt/2PtrLVz) that the original draft of the bill would not survive a First Amendment challenge. As a result, they replaced the word "humiliate" with the word "stalk" and created a new definition of "harass" which attempts to redefine the meaning of the word. Merriam-Webster defines "harass" as "to annoy persistently." The First Amendment protects the right to annoy another person persistently if the cause of that annoyance is public criticism. HB 3047 defines personal email addresses and employer contact information as personal information. How could the disclosure of an email address subject a reasonable person to severe emotional distress such that the individual experiences anxiety, fear, torment or apprehension? Will they be worried that bots will find it and bombard them with spam? Will they experience fear and apprehension at the prospect of clicking on a malware link? Could a person sue under this statute simply because someone posts criticism that includes where they work? Does this mean that consumers dissatisfied with a company's employee cannot post about their dissatisfaction and encourage others to complaint to their boss? This statue is so vague and sweeps so broadly that it could chill the dissemination of harmless information while curtailing consumer advocacy. For the reasons explained above and the legal arguments used in prior posts about other sponsors of HB 3047 (see https://ift.tt/2PtrLVz and https://ift.tt/3t3i11L), the bill violated the First Amendment due to vagueness and its application to constitutionally protected speech on matters of public concern. That is why we have publicly declared that we will not legitimize it with our cooperation. We are however willing to remove the addresses that we make public in opposition of this bill should the Oregon Senate refuse to adopt HB 3047, the governor refuse to sign it, or a court nullifies it. Fortunately for us the bill won't be retroactive, so even if we were to lick their boots on this issue we wouldn't have to remove information posted before it takes effect. Due to the CDA we still would not be considered the publisher of information posted by others after it takes effect. If it becomes law we will not allow it to have a chilling effect on us. In the event that we are properly served with a lawsuit we will immediately file a motion for declaratory relief in federal court on the grounds that this bill violates the First Amendment. If the court adopts the opinion of the U.S. District Court for the Easter District of California (https://ift.tt/3ns5lAm) and the Western District of Washington (https://ift.tt/32U6ffF) the law will by nullified. In the meantime we will continue to utilize our offshore infrastructure to secure our rights whether the government in our area likes it or not. We have the right to do what we must to prevent the enforcement of HB 3047 for injuring us between the day it becomes law and the day we get it declared unconstitutional. "As we have held, where a plaintiff has refrained from engaging in expressive activity for fear of prosecution under the challenged statute, such self-censorship is a "constitutionally sufficient injury" as long as it is based on "an actual and well-founded fear" that the challenged statute will be enforced," Human Life of Wash., Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir. 2010). To protect ourselves and our users from such injuries we will continue to do business as usual. We can do that because we have an offshore infrastructure that prevents the American courts from being able to go over our heads and compromise our servers. We will continue to leave our block on home addresses in place on all categories of posts except for snitches and other, but that block is programmed to only work if the owner of the site has logged into his account within the past 14 days, so if anything happens to him that block will not be there anymore. He does not fear being held in contempt for refusing to honor court orders made under this bill because he is an ex-con that did time in a federal penitentiary and does not fear jail. Trying to get him to pay a fine or a judgement under such circumstances would be like getting the Bundy's to pay grazing fees, it would not work. In closing, we don't like having to put Janelle Sojourner Bynum on blast like this, but we couldn't think of a more appropriate way to protest an unconstitutional bill targeting the dissemination of accurate information than by posting that type of information about the sponsors of the bill. We are doing it to make a point. The point is that the government itself disclosed her address, we lawfully acquired her address, and we have a First Amendment right to post her address. The state of Oregon has no legitimate claim of right to circumvent the federal constitution. Note: Please do not use the information on this page to harm people, property, or engage in any other type of criminal activity. Nobody has ever been subjected to criminal activity as a result of being posted on this website and we don't want Janelle Bynum to be the first. #janellebynum #freespeech #enemiesofliberty
Bill Post of the Oregon House of Representatives falsely claims on his Facebook page that an unconstitutional bill he sponsored has the ability to put an end to the online publication of personal and confidential information. His exact words were: "HB 3047 passed the House today. If it passes the Senate and becomes law, it will put an end to posting private and confidential information in order to harass or harm individuals. As always this is a liberty issue for me and I was honored to co-chief sponsor and co-carry it on the House floor today." - Bill Post (R - Keizer) His claim has several problems: 1) The bill violates the First Amendment of the federal constitution on its face; 2) Federal courts have recently struck down similar bills; 3) Even if Supreme Court were to uphold the bill it would be unenforceable due to the international nature of the internet. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." HB 3047, which we are uploading as a PDF, constitutes a content based restriction on speech conditioned on subjective claims of emotional distress. There are some forms of speech covered by the bill that are not free speech such as posting home addresses for the purpose of inciting violence against people or placing them in fear for their safety, but this bill goes beyond that. It creates a civil cause of action based on "severe emotional distress" and includes "anxiety" as a form of such distress. If the Oregon Senate passes the bill and it is signed by the Governor some could seek injunctive relief in the form of censorship against anyone that posts their home address online just by claiming to have suffered anxiety. We frequently post home addresses of government officials if we consider them dangerous or we want to help non-violent demonstrators decide where to picket. Officials like Bill Post would likely try to use this law to make us remove their information. We do not have to do that and trying to force our hand in such matters would be a bad idea for reasons we will elaborate on later. In 2017, The United States District Court for Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a similar law in Publius v. Boyer-Vine (https://ift.tt/3ns5lAm). The California law against doxxing government officials (Section 6254.21(c) https://ift.tt/3u0XdcC) at issue in that case was strikingly similar to HB 3407 with the only significant differences being that HB 3407 applies to everyone as opposed to just government officials and Section 3254.21(c) only applies when "intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual." A blogger calling himself "The Real Write Winger" decided to fight back against a law requiring gun owners to register for inclusion in a government database by creating an online tyrant registry featuring the home addresses and phone numbers of legislators that had voted in favor of the bill. He also gave each tyrant in the registry the opportunity to remove their names, "the only way for a tyrant to have their name removed from the tyrant registry is to pass laws which repeal the laws that got them added to the list." We are in the process of doing the same thing to members of the Oregon House of Representatives that voted in favor of HB 3047 and any members of Oregon Senate that sponsor or vote in favor of it in the future. Like The Real Write Winger's list, ours is also "a constantly updated list depending on future votes." The court held that Section 3251.21(c) was a content bases speech restriction and relied on the following precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to support their conclusions: "Content-based laws - those that target speech based on its communicative content are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests." Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, 135 S. Ct. 2218 at 2226 (2015)(https://ift.tt/3nqi4Ur) "As a general matter, state action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards." Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 527 (2001) (https://ift.tt/3xtAWGA) The court went on to say "several cases demonstrate that the First Amendment protects the right to publish highly personal information of private individuals, such as the names of rape victims and juveniles involved in legal proceedings, when they relate to matters of public concern." The court also said that speech made in the context of protest is a matter of public concern. That pertains to CopBlaster.com specifically because we dox government officials as a form of protest. It could also be extended to disputes involving private citizens due to the simple fact that doxxing is usually done to protest someone for something. The court cited another example from SCOTUS "holding injunction on dispersing pamphlets with realtor's home phone number and urging recipients to call him to urge certain political stance was prior restraint that violated First Amendment" Org. for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 417 (1971)(https://ift.tt/3aKOS5l). Then the court moved on to the strikingly similar case of Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee (https://ift.tt/3aNLzu2) in which a federal court in Florida ruled against a law that made it a crime to "publish or disseminate" the home addresses of police officers. The court also cited a case in which the Fourth Circuit upheld the right to post social security numbers online and concluded "that highly personal information has public significance when inextricably associated with political speech." Since CopBlaster.com exists in part for the purpose of criticizing people that enforce laws, assist others with the enforcement of laws, attempt to cause laws to be enforced, and other things the inclusion of home addresses is a matter of public concern that HB 3047 cannot constitutionally hinder. The Court in Boyer-Vine went on to say that California Section 3251.21(c) failed for not being narrowly tailored. The Court said, "There is no dispute that Plaintiffs lawfully obtained and truthfully published information that was readily available online. When lawfully obtained, the truthful publication of that information falls within the First Amendment's ambit." Oregon HB 3047 is far broader in that it does not require intent to injure or threaten, but simply that a "reasonable person" would suffer "anxiety." The statute in Brayshaw was considered "overinclusive in proscribing speech that is not a true threat." The court in Sheehan v. Gregoire (https://ift.tt/32U6ffF) reached a similar conclusion "[W]hen the government itself injects personal identifying information into the public domain, it cannot credibly take the contradictory position that one who compiles and communicates that information offends a compelling state interest." Sheehan involved a Washington statute that prohibited the dissemination of home addressees and other information "with the intent to harm or intimidate." If the state of Washington cannot constitutionally enforce a law against publishing home addresses "with the intent to harm or intimidate" then surely the state of Oregon cannot constitutionally enforce a law that prohibits doing the same with the intent to cause anxiety. The fact that HB 3047 aims to "protect" everyone and not just government officials does not change our analysis. Surely police officers who depend on having numbers in the right places for tactical advantages would allegedly suffer greater anxiety than a private person as a result of having their home address posted online. They can't be in two places at once, so defending their home while waging war on the public can be difficult. The same can be said of people like Bill Post who cited a personal experience as his motivation for sponsoring the bill. Legislators depend on the protection of law enforcement to strip people of their rights with impunity. Surely a legislator like Bill Post would allegedly suffer far greater anxiety than a private person should his address be made publicly available. Normal people do not make enemies like government officials do. This bill is clearly intended to protect government officials and not private people. If anxiety is not enough to justify a content based restriction on speech directed at government officials then it is not enough to justify a content based restriction on speech directed against private citizens. Finally, HB 3047 like Section 3251.21(c) is not narrowly tailored because "it does not differentiate between acts that "make public" previously private information and those that "make public" information that is already publicly available." In fact, HB 3047 seems primarily aimed at sharing information that the government itself made publicly available via public records such as Bill Post's home address. HB 3047 is so broad that it only addresses "to disclose" and defines "disclose" as "transfer, publish, distribute, exhibit, advertise and offer." Under that broad definition one could argue that hosting private information constitutes "distribute, exhibit" or "offer" despite the fact that websites hosting such content are not considered "information content providers" under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. By no stretch of the imagination could a statue be constitutionally enforced in such a manner. Even if HB 3047 were held to be legal that does not mean that it is capable of hindering us. Due to the international nature of the internet it is not possible for one state to put an end to things simply by passing laws against them. We have already moved our servers to companies in foreign countries that ignore "orders" from American courts. If anyone in the United States, including police officers, judges, and other government officials, want anything about our content to change they have to satisfy our requirements. They cannot simply say that by having a physical presence within their borders that they can make us do things. They can request that something be done, call that request a "lawful order," and we can simply say "no," This is what would happen in any case in which an American court issues an "order" asking us to take something down in accordance with HB 3047 unless we find some reason to remove it based on our own criteria. Jailing us for contempt would not be a good idea because the thousands of home addresses belonging to government officials that we do censor voluntarily would automatically be uncensored should the owner be prevented from logging into his account for 14 days for any reason. As a result any effort to force compliance with HB 3047 before we are able to mount a successful constitutional challenge in court would have the opposite result. Our founder is a former convict who spent over a year in general population at an active United States Penitentiary (USP Victorville). The only higher security facility that they could have sent him to would have been Administrative Maximum in Florence, Colorado (ADX Florence). He is not afraid of a little jail time. He also knows that the right combination of offshore trusts and bank accounts can render any stateside monetary judgment uncollectable. According to public records, William Ronald Post is a 60 year old resident of Salem, Oregon. His last known address is 5135 Lacey St. That property was purchased in 2016 by POST W & C FAM TRUST. We believe the letter "C" to be in reference to his wife whose first name starts with that letter. We are not including her name or that of his kid because our quarrel is not with them. It is common for people to purchase property through a trust when they wish to keep their names out of public records as it relates to the property. Records also list 1251 Clearview Ave. NE in Keizer, Oregon as current through some time this year. Post is technically the representative for Keizer, so we suspect him of having residences in Keizer as well as Salem. He must after all live in the district he represents at times to represent it. Conclusion CopBlaster.com has every right to create a public registry of Oregon lawmakers which includes their home addresses and condition the criteria for being included on their voting practices. We have every right to do what we must to avoid being injured by unconstitutional laws because everyone has a valid claim of right to the protection of the Bill of Rights. Even if that were not the case we could continuing operating normally anyway. #billpost #freespeech #enemiesofliberty
Members of the Oregon House or Representative led by Brad Witt think they can stop websites like ours from doxxing people like him by passing a bill authorizing a civil cause of action for such things. We will not tolerate government officials that blatantly violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This bill appears primarily motivated by the desire of government officials like police officers, prosecutors, judges, and Brad Witt to keep their home addresses off the internet. In response to his transgressions we are doxxing him, will be doxxing other co-sponsors of the bill, and time permitting may even dox every member of the Oregon House that voted in favor of it. The bill still must be approved by the Oregon Senate and signed by the Governor, so let this post serve as a warning to every member of the Oregon Senate that if they sponsor this bill they will be doxxed and if they they vote for it they will probably be doxxed. We can do this because our server is in a foreign country, so we are the only Oregonians with any say as to what can or cannot be hosted on it, we will never honor any court in this state that issues a favorable ruling under the bill, and we will dox any government official in this state who aids anyone with enforcing it. That last part means that if you are a judge in the state of Oregon and you award a plaintiff who prevails in a cause of action under the bill with injunctive relief or monetary damages you will be doxxed. If you are a law enforcement officer and you assist any plaintiff with service of process you will be doxxed. If you are a government official who assists anyone with enforcing this unconstitutional bill in any way you will be doxxed. As the Oregonian made clear, this Bill was introduced by members of the Oregon House of Representatives including ones that have been doxxed themselves and said that they needed the bill for their own benefit. This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which clearly says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Any law that prohibits the publication of true facts abridges the freedom of speech. There are of course exceptions to that freedom, some of which are mentioned in HB 3047 which we are uploading as a PDF with this article. Those exceptions are using personal information about people to commit crimes which includes posting that information for the purpose of causing someone physical harm. We have no problem with that aspect of the bill. What we have a problem with is their definition of "Harass" which reads as follows: "'Harass' means to subject another to severe emotional distress such that the individual experiences anxiety, fear, torment or apprehension that may or may not result in a physical manifestation of severe emotional distress or a mental health diagnosis and is protracted rather than merely trivial or transitory." - HB 3047 That language opens the flood gates for any crybaby claiming to have experienced emotional distress as a result of true information being posted on the internet. The founder of Cop Blaster defeated a federal indictment years ago in which the United States Attorney's Office accused him of violating the internet stalking statute by inflicting "substantial emotional distress" on persons in other states by posting content on the internet and allowing others to post. During the negotiations that led to the dismissal of that charge his counsel made it clear that you cannot criminalize free speech with subjective claims of emotional distress. HB 3047 does not create a criminal offense, but the same logic applied. It creates a situation in which someone that posts a true fact online can be ordered to remove it and pay damages (economic, non-economic, punitive, and attorney's fees). Unfortunately for people like Brad Witt, such bills only achieve their desired effects if the poster voluntarily complies with injunctive relief orders and actually makes payments when ordered to pay damages. We will never comply with an injunction and we will never pay damages. Who do we think we are? We are anyone smart enough to host their website offshore with people that won't honor court orders from the United States. We are anyone who knows that offshore banking and trusts can be utilized to avoid paying judgments ordered by American courts. We are anyone smart enough to create a database containing the home addresses of thousands of police officers, prosecutors, and judges while at the same time blocking that information from the internet unless the owner of the website cannot login for 14 days. That last one means that when we are in contempt it is in the government's best interest not to hold us in custody. Even if they do hold the owner, he spent over a year in a high security United States Penitentiary and does not fear jail. The last time he was in jail he spent his time disseminating home addresses of federal judges and law enforcement officials, some of which he memorized, to his fellow inmates. We are also close students of the law smart enough to fight this bill while acting as our own counsel should we must and pursue it through appellate courts until we can get it declared unconstitutional because as we have already established you cannot justify abridging the freedom of speech with subjective claims of emotional distress. Conclusion We will not legitimize illegitimate government actions with our compliance, we will make life worse for those that enforce illegitimate laws, and those that transgress us will regret it. #bradwitt #freespeech #enemiesofliberty
Pasquotank County Attorney Richard Michael Cox said that he will not be bullied for his refusal to release body camera footage of the Andrew Brown Jr. shooting. Unfortunately for him, he has no control over the matter unless he releases the body camera footage to the general public. He has no control over being bullied because we have decided that we will bully him and help others do the same until he does the right thing. Known as R. Michael Cox, the Pasquotank County Attorney told the Brown family that he is "not f***ing going to be bullied" by them or their attorneys. Cox has played a central role in the effort to cover up what sounds like another execution of an unarmed black man. Pasquotank County has refused to release body camera footage to the public and only allowed the Brown family to view a 20 second snippet in a private screening. Attorney Ben Crump, who represents the Brown family, quickly called Cox out publicly for what he called a bait and switch in which he promised to show raw footage only to show 20 seconds. Ben Crump (https://twitter.com/attorneycrump) is the same lawyer representing the family of George Floyd and other high profile families of black people murdered by police in recent years. We want R. Michael Cox to release the body camera footage to the public immediately. Until then we will do all we can to put pressure on him. Today Anderson Cooper showed footage of a group of protesters that he believed were headed to a location believed by them to be the home of R. Michael Cox. According to public records, that location is probably 109 Persse St. in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. We at Cop Blaster have been posting home addresses of bad government officials for years when we think it could be useful for non-violent peaceful protesters that want to make themselves heard. For that reason we are exempting Cox from our usual courtesy of blocking home addresses of law enforcement officials. If you are in the Elizabeth City area please got to 109 Persse Street and make your voice heard peacefully. We compared Google Earth images for the address 109 Persse St. to the video below and concluded that it is most likely the location of the protest in the video, but it looks like the video focuses more on the nicer house next door. We applaud these protesters for peacefully making their voices heard on Mr. Cox's time and encourage others to do the same until he releases the body camera footage to the public. #richardmichaelcox #andrewbrown #murder #bodycams
Got busted along with Methamphetamines along with 2 others and nobody was taking to jail.. James agreed to set up drug deals for him to remain free.. Now a couple days later Dustin Bradford was busted with his involvement and few more days another male he was attempting to set up got away.. so who is gonna b the next victim.. #willsetuupifgivingchance
Prince George's County Police (PGCP) Lt. Edward Finn was arrested by agents with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) last week for attempting to evade or defeat taxes. The IRS alleges that Finn operated a security business called Edward Finn Inc. (EFI) and failed to report nearly $1.3 million in income between 2014 and 2019. He faces up to five years in federal prison where he will most likely spend his time at a minimum security camp where even a cop can walk the yard because the other inmates are either rats or other non-violent offenders unwilling to do anything about him because they fear being sent up to a low security facility. In other words, he will be fortunate enough to do his time with a bunch of lames unwilling to put in work. The PGCP suspended Finn's police powers back in March due to an unrelated matter for which it sounds like he was likely placed on administrative leave. He has been with the department since 1995. According to GovSalaries, Finn made $176,891 (https://ift.tt/3gFLmNf) from his PGCP job alone in 2019. While we are not surprised to learn that he is crooked, we are always surprised when someone with such a well paying job decides to take on a side hustle and doesn't report that side hustle to the IRS. According to public records, Edward Scott Finn is a 46 year old resident of Dunkirk, Maryland. Finn registered to vote as a Democrat in 1999, but then registered as a Republican in 2011. On a side note, we are disappointed that Lt. Finn did not try to do what every self respecting police officer should do when the feds try to collect taxes. He should have tried to arrest them for theft. #edwardfinn #taxevasion #irs #theft
He helped his sister and the police set someone up for the police. Be aware of these snitches.. police ass bitch #nicleysiblings
She is on paperwork as a witness who helps that someone up to get busted by the police in Elwood Indiana #nicleysiblings
Melanie Ann Orme is a popular tweaker in Minnesota. She has a lot of friends who all seem to ignore the "rumors" that she's a CI. I've posted proof numerous times on social media. Due to her being able to continue getting people federally indicted I feel obligated to get the word out anywhere possible. Find me on Facebook. I know for certain she's responsible in the Ben Yackel and Ry Gustafson federal indictments and I'm certain there are many more. Request access to the pdf proof here: https://ift.tt/3eucOej #minnesota #anoka #federal #snitch #mel #orme
Bladensburg Police Officer LoQune Lee Brown was arrested yesterday for sexually assaulting a 12 year old relative. According to media reports, charging documents allege that the victim told authorities that Brown sexually assaulted her twice last year during family gatherings in the basement of his home in Gwynn Oak. She said that the first incident involved him groping her chest last summer, and the second incident involved him making her touch his penis in November. His charges include third degree sexual offenses, sexual abuse of a minor household or family member, and second degree assault. He is currently being held without bond in Baltimore County. According to media reports, Brown was placed on administrative leave back on March 9th when his employer found out about the investigation. Investigators discovered direct messages between Brown and his victim on Instagram. The messages revealed that his victim asked why he had assaulted her. Brown replied "Idk [I dont know] i was drinking and feeling good ... Thought you would like it" to which she responded "I am 12 years old why would I would like that?" Brown answered "idk sry ... Won't happen again." We were able to track down court records in this case and are uploading them as a PDF with this article, to view them just click on the PDF icon above this article next to the text which says State of Maryland v. LoQune Lee Brown. Those documents include the following information: Case Information Court System: District Court For Baltimore County - Criminal Location: Towson Case Number: D-08-CR-21-009138 Title: State of Maryland vs. LOQUNE LEE BROWN Case Type: Criminal - SOC - Application Filing Date: 04/19/2021 Case Status: Open Tracking Number(s): 211001143673 Other Reference Numbers Central Complaint Number: 210671077 Defendant Information Defendant Name: BROWN, LOQUNE LEE Race: Black Sex: Male Height: 5'8" Weight: 170 HairColor: Black EyeColor: Brown DOB: 05/10/1986 Address: 6412 GILMORE ST City: GWYNN OAK State: MD Zip Code: 21207-0000 Involved Parties Information Plaintiff Name: State of Maryland Attorney(s) for the Plaintiff Name: State's Attorney, Baltimore County Appearance Date: 04/20/2021 Address Line 1: 401 Bosley Ave Address Line 2: Room 511 City: Towson State: MD Zip Code: 21204 Officer - Arresting/Complainant Name: CARNS, A AgencyName: BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE Address: 700 E. JOPPA ROAD City: TOWSON State: MD Zip Code: 21286 Court Scheduling Information Hearing - Bail/ Bond Review 04/23/2021 13:00:00 Towson Calendar Courtroom 6 Concluded / Held Hearing - Preliminary 05/21/2021 10:00:00 Towson Calendar Courtroom 3 Charge and Disposition Information Charge No: 1CJIS Code: 3-3600 Statute Code: CR.3.307 Charge Description: SEX OFFENSE THIRD DEGREE Charge Class: Felony Circuit Court Probable Cause: YES Offense Date From: 07/01/2020 To: 11/12/2020 Charge No: 2CJIS Code: 1-1415 Statute Code: CR.3.203 Charge Description: ASSAULT-SEC DEGREE Charge Class: Misdemeanor Probable Cause: YES Offense Date From: 07/01/2020 To: 11/12/2020 Charge No: 3CJIS Code: 1-0922Statute Code:CR.3.602.(b)(2) Charge Description: SEX ABUSE MINOR: HOUSE/FAM Charge Class: Felony Circuit Court Probable Cause: YES Offense Date From: 07/01/2020 To: 11/12/2020 Charge No: 4CJIS Code: 3-3600 Statute Code: CR.3.307 Charge Description: SEX OFFENSE THIRD DEGREE Charge Class: Felony Circuit Court Probable Cause: YES Offense Date From: 11/12/2020 To: 11/12/2020 Charge No: 5CJIS Code: 1-1415 Statute Code: CR.3.203 Charge Description: ASSAULT-SEC DEGREE Charge Class: Misdemeanor Probable Cause: YES Offense Date From: 11/12/2020 To: 11/12/2020 Charge No: 6CJIS Code: 1-0922 Statute Code: CR.3.602.(b)(2) Charge Description: SEX ABUSE MINOR: HOUSE/FAM Charge Class: Felony Circuit Court Probable Cause: YES Offense Date From: 11/12/2020 To: 11/12/2020 Warrants Information Arrest Warrant 04/19/2021 Warrant Served 04/22/2021 Bond Setting Information Bail Date:04/22/2021 Bail Setting Type: Hold Without Bond Bail Amount: $0.00 Bail Date: 04/23/2021 Bail Setting Type: Hold Without Bond Bail Amount:$0.00 We are exempting Officer Brown from our usual courtesy of blocking home addresses of officers on this website because he is charged with a sex crime against a child. We ask that you use this information for legal purposes only. According to public records, LoQune Lee Brown is 34 years old with no prior criminal record. He has a handful of small civil judgments against him. He is a registered Democrat. #loqunebrown #sexoffenders #childmolestation
Chesterfield Police Officer Brandon Hyde has been fired and arrested for attempting to solicit child pornography during a series of sexting incidents involving a minor back in 2019. Chesterfield Police Chief Jeffery Katz told the media that a former officer brought the allegations against Hyde to the attention of management on February 20th, Hyde was placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an internal investigation, Katz fired Hyde on March 12th, reported his behavior to the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services due in part to Hyde's honesty which Katz described as "completely forthright about his conduct during our investigation" and yesterday Hyde was arrested. Katz elaborated that Hyde sent an "inappropriate photo" to the victim at least once and asked that she send inappropriate photos of herself in return. Brandon Hyde had been with the Chesterfield County Police Department since 2017. He is a Marine Corps veteran and a sergeant in the Virginia National Guard. He is 31 years old and originally from Chesterfield, so it appears that Chesterfield has had its own born and raised Chester for over three decades. #brandonhyde #sexoffenders #childpornography #sexting
William Sumner was employed as a school resource officer by the Darlington County Sheriff's Office (DCSO) until he was caught on camera assaulting a student at Lamar High School on Friday. He was subsequently fired and on Tuesday he was booked into the W. Glenn Campbell Detention Center on charges of third degree assault/battery and misconduct in office. According to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), Sumner grabbed a male student by his clothes, lifted him from a chair, and shoved him into a wall. Court documents obtained by mainstream media outlets claim that Sumner "used an unreasonable amount of force and had to be restrained by the principal." Darlington had worked with the DCSO since 2014 and before that he was a Darlington Police Officer for over 20 years. Judging by his mugshot we suspect that may have also been in violation of DCSO fitness standards or that the DCSO has subpar fitness standards. According to public records, William Kenneth Sumner is a 57 year old resident of Lamar, South Carolina. He has a small record for traffic citations and in 2000 he was cited for littering. He is a registered Democrat. #williamsumner #childabuse #assault
We don't side with law enforcement very often, but when we see a knife wielding maniac trying to stab someone we support shooting that person. That is what the body camera footage released by the Columbus Police Department shows. We have embedded the video below. The footage is played at full speed and then in slow motion. The slow motion footage makes it obvious that the deceased had a knife in her hand and was trying to stab someone when the officer opened fire literally at the last second before she would have stabbed the other person. Could he have tried using a taser? Sure, he could have tried that and maybe he should have tased her right away when he first noticed the knife, but at the time of the shooting he had to choose between letting someone get stabbed and shooting a knife wielding maniac. Tasers malfunction a lot, so there was a good chance that a taser would not have been sufficient. Tasers frequently fail hit their target with both prongs and when that happens they hardly feel a thing. The knife wielding maniac has been identified as 15 year old Ma'Khia Bryant. Attorney Ben Crump, George Floyd's family's lawyer, was quick to take to Twitter and politicize this as a racial justice issue (https://twitter.com/AttorneyCrump/status/1384667861642358785). It did after all happen the same day that Derek Chauvin was convicted of murder for killing George Floyd. Black kids are unjustly killed by police on a regular basis in this country, so Crump's assumption was not without cause. However, the video clearly shows that the officer acted at the last second before the deceased would have most likely stabbed and possibly killed another person. This is not the first time we have sided with officers in a case involving a knife wielding maniac. Last year we sided with police in the shooting death of Ricardo Munoz (https://ift.tt/3hog6ix). In that case a knife wielding man chased an officer who could have shot him at first, but tried to run away and after Munoz started to catch up he shot him. We don't care what your occupation is or what color you are, if a knife wielding maniac is about to stab someone you have the right to shoot'em. #makhiabryant #bencrump #georgefloyd #derekchauvin
Today is a historic day in the fight against police brutality. Derek Chauvin was found guilty on all three counts including third degree murder for the killing of George Floyd last year. You can watch his reaction to the verdict in the video below. Many people view this as a victory and it is, but it is only a partial victory because Chauvin was undercharged and faces at most 25 years in prison. He will have to do that time as a marked man due to being a cop, but he will probably walk free someday if he is not killed in prison. By charging Chauvin with third degree murder (https://ift.tt/3eB7AMk), the state alleged that Chauvin recklessly killed George Floyd. They never even tried to argue that he intentionally killed George Floyd. The allegation was that although Chauvin intentionally kept his knee on Floyd's neck that he did not do so for the purpose of killing him. He did it with reckless disregard for Floyd's life and as a result he died. That is the worst thing that Chauvin has been accused of by the state of Minnesota. He received preferential treatment from prosecutors because he was a police officer. A civilian of any color would not have been so fortunate. A civilian would have been charged with at least second degree murder and the jury would have been given the option to convict him of third degree murder as a lesser included offense. That is called "stacking the deck" and it is something prosecutors almost always do. They charge someone with anything they think a jury might convict him of hoping that at worst they will only convict him of the lesser offenses. Derek Chauvin's jury was not given those options because to them Smurfs lives matter. Second degree murder is the intentional killing of another without premeditation (https://ift.tt/3n2sLwe). In Chauvin's case we believe that he intentionally killed George Floyd by choking the life out of him with his knee for over 9 minutes, but that he did not plan on killing him. Premeditation requires planning without which one cannot be charged with first degree murder. Had Chauvin arrived on the scene planning to kill someone he would have been guilty of first degree murder. If convicted of second degree murder, Chauvin would be facing up to 40 years. Due to Chauvin's age he would likely die in prison if sentenced to 40 years. We fear that today's celebration will be short lived and will soon be replaced by rage when Chauvin is sentenced. Too many people that are ignorant of the law hear "guilty of murder" and think he will spend the rest of his life in prison. When he is sentenced to 25 years they will wake up and take action just as they did after seeing the video of Chauvin murdering George Floyd. There is a chance that he could receive consecutive sentences for the other two counts, but that is not likely. They were all part of the same criminal episode and the law typically disfavors consecutive sentences for conduct that was part of the same criminal episode. He will likely be sentenced to concurrent sentences the maximum of which will not exceed 25 years. Cop Blaster has been covering this case since the beginning. We were one of the first outlets to say the name Derek Chauvin and post his personal information (https://ift.tt/36yOX95). #derekchauvin #georgefloyd #murder #racism #smurfslivesmatter
Former Travis County Deputy Stephen Broderick was arrested today for fatally shooting three people including his wife and 17 year old daughter in northwest Austin yesterday. He was arrested about 15 miles away from the scene in Manor. Authorities say they took him into custody after people living in the small mostly white community called police to report what they described as a suspicious black male. Police followed standard operating procedures by responding in force. After realizing that the suspect was Broderick he was arrested. A pistol was found on his person. Broderick was awaiting trial at the time of the shooting. Last June he was arrested on charges of sexually assaulting a minor. A 16 year old girl told her mother that Broderick had sexually assaulted her. The victim's mother took her to the hospital, physical trauma was discovered, and Broderick was arrested. Broderick was freed on a $50,000 bond and ordered to wear a GPS monitor, but the judge later ordered that it be removed after 142 days of good behavior. Court records reveal that the then 16 year old girl was Alyssa Broderick, Deputy Broderick's own daughter and one of the three people he killed. Broderick's motive appears to be revenge against his daughter and her mother for telling on him. The other victim was Willie Simmons III. Simmons was a standout athlete at the same high school that Alyssa Broderick attended. We are not sure as to the exact nature of their relationship. Whatever was going on, it looks like he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Seven years before being charged with sexually assaulting his daughter, Broderick was investigated for wrongfully shooting a 78 year old man, but got away with it by accusing the man of refusing to drop his weapon. The investigation revealed that Broderick had a reputation as a trigger happy cop. According to public records, Stephen Nicholas Broderick is a 41 year old resident of Elgin, Texas. He is a registered Democrat with no prior convictions. #stephenbroderick #sexoffenders #murder
Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) officer Robert Jones was arrested yesterday for breaking into a woman's house and attacking her. Jones is charged with first degree burglary, wanton endangerment, fourth degree assault, and domestic violence. According to court documents, Jones pushed his way into a woman's home, berated her for not returning his calls, covered her mouth when she yelled for Siri to call 911, beat her, and held her against her will. At some point she fell down the stairs during the struggle. A judge set Jones' bail at $30,000 with conditions that he not possess any weapons and that he have no contact with the victim. The Public Integrity Unit of the LMPD claims that Jones has since been administratively re-assigned pending the outcome of the case, which we interpret as him being re-assigned to desk duty as opposed to being placed on paid leave or suspended. We find this news disturbing since most police departments do not allow a man facing such charges to keep on working. They typically place the officer on paid leave pending the outcome of an internal investigation, but a growing number of departments have started suspending officers without pay when those investigations involve arrests. Louisville appears behind the curve in this area. #robertjones #siri #burglary #kidnapping #assault #domesticviolence