Pinellas County correctional officer Patrick Knight was arrested Monday on charges of battery and official misconduct for using excessive force on an inmate. Officials say that Knight slapped, punched and pulled out a clump of of the victim's hair before lying about it. Knight would have probably gotten away with it had it not been for a superior officer doing his job and a fellow officer ratting him out. Officer Jameson Jessie originally told supervisors a version of events similar to Knight's, but changed his story after Lt. Priscilla Campbell noticed inconsistencies between Knight's story and the physical evidence. According to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (PCSO), inmate Terrell Johnson was yelling and kicking a cell door because his handcuffs were too tight. Officers Knight and Jessie entered the cell. Knight then pushed Johnson to the floor "without provocation," Johnson's head hit a cement bunk as he fell, Knight grabbed Johnson by the hair so hard that he pulled a chunk of hair out, pinned him to a wall, slapped him in the face, and punched him. The encounter left Johnson with a laceration above his left eye. Knight filed an incident report with Lt. Campbell in which he mentioned pulling Johnson's hair, but did not mention slapping or punching him. Knight also falsely accused Johnson of trying to kick him in order to justify pushing Johnson to the floor. Lt. Campbell became suspicious when Knight reported that Johnson suffered injuries to the back of his head as well as the laceration on the front of his head. Knight's explanation did not explain how Johnson could have suffered injuries to both the front and back of his head. Officer Jessie initially told Lt. Campbell a story similar to Knight's, but recanted a few hours later. We don't know why Jessie recanted his story. Usually correctional officers stick together in scenarios like this so that they don't get in trouble. Supervising officers are usually in it as well, so whenever a guard accuses an inmate of something and there is no video to support the inmate's version of events, then the supervisor sides with the guard. That is often the case even when the guard's version of events fails to explain the physical evidence. After that the rest of the department and the DA's office stick by the official story of a sworn officer unless they are shown incontrovertible proof that it is not accurate. Usually the only way to obtain enough proof for a department or DA to take action you need incontrovertible video evidence. It is like instant replay in football for which you need incontrovertible video evidence to overturn the call on the field. Even expert medical evidence can be considered insufficient to compel action. This author knows this all too well having obtained what is so far an unrebutted expert witness report proving that stories told by correctional officers could not physically explain injuries I sustained in an Oregon jail. The report was good enough to get me a plea offer of time served when I was facing years in prison based on false accusations of battery fabricated by deputies in an effort to justify breaking my arm. To this date the sheriff and local prosecutors stand by the official story of the deputies involved and I have a lawsuit pending in federal court. While in the federal system I witnessed countless cases of guards abusing inmates and nothing was ever done about it. According to public records, Patrick Buchanan Knight is a 51 year old resident of Trinity, Florida. He is a registered Republican with no prior criminal record. We are not sure if he was named after former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan (https://ift.tt/1hG1vNc). Pat Buchanan was still working as an aid for Richard Nixon when Knight was born, so we doubt that some lady would have named her son after a White House aid unless she knew him. #patrickknight #priscillacampbell #jamesonjessie #patbuchanansource https://copblaster.com/blast/45715/pinellas-county-guard-patrick-knight-arrested-for-assaulting-inmate
After an exhausting search Kevin R. Johnson 49yrs. Of age is finally outed in Muncie Indiana . He was suspected of possible police affiliation but modern day being what it is. The age of technology has finally brought this informant and his number to the light ( Informant # 15265921D.T.F) As many as 35 different reports Kevin has informed from Texas to Chicago his reports are still putting people behind bars. #snitches #confidential #informant #delawarecounty #indiana #kevin #johnson
Sewall's Point Police Officer Juan Garcia was arrested today for sexual misconduct with a 15 year old. Garcia now faces four counts of soliciting a minor and one count of traveling to meet a minor for sex. He was arrested by the Martin County Sheriff's Office in the county which he resides. Garcia is a 5 year veteran with the Sewall's Point Police Department (SPPD). He has been placed on unpaid administrative leave pending the outcome of the case and an internal investigation. We noticed that initial media reports about his case didn't bother to name Garcia. Those sources just said "an officer" whose name had not been released. We were able to find one source that did print his name and you can check it out by clicking on the source attribution link above the map on this page. We couldn't find any good images of Garcia at first, but we were able to find the above image on the Town of Sewall's Facebook page in a post about Officer Garcia receiving an award for traffic safety earlier this year (https://ift.tt/3DRWkbm). We found Garcia's LinkedIn profile on which he claims to be the owner of Mi Cabana Taco Truck in Stuart, Florida and Garcia Services in Martin County. He described Garcia Services as follows: "I am a self employed Public Notary for the state of Florida. My business dedicates itself in Notarizing Documents, Translating Documents from Spanish to English (written or orally), Translating in Person, and helping fill out applications (I.e. Passport Applications, Job Employment Applications, & More). My Spanish has helped resolve issues and translate for those unable to speak English." - https://ift.tt/3nNAcJM Mi Cabana Taco Truck claims to be located at 2602 SE Clayton St, Stuart, FL 34997 according to the company's Facebook page (https://ift.tt/3FHyNum) which lists the email address juangarcia_772[at]yahoo.com and phone number (772) 209-2463. That same email address was used to create the Juan Garcia LinkedIn account which has been linked to the phone number 772-283-9656. We found a profile of Juan Garcia promoting himself as a notary public in Stuart, Florida which is where we finally found his picture (https://ift.tt/3CGQhFj). According to public records, Juan Antonio Garcia is a 30 year old resident of Stuart, Florida last known to reside at 2602 SE Clayton Street. We noticed that address matches the address of Mi Cabana Taco Truck from Facebook, however public records list the address of Mi Cabana Taco Truck as 3450 SE Dixie HWY. Garcia has also been linked to the address 4592 SE MURRAY COVE CIR STUART, FL 34997 as recently as this year. We normally don't paste the home addresses of police officers into the body of our articles, but we make exceptions for exceptional officers. Garcia made himself exceptional in our view by being arrested for sex crimes against a minor. #juangarcia #micabanatacotruck #sexoffenders.jpg)
Dr. Lyn J. Mangiameli was assigned to my case which involved a false allegation. My former attorney had previously threatened to tamper with any evaluation. She said that she "lost a lot of business" as a result of complaints that I had previously made about her. This attorney allowed my 13 year old son to be sexually molested. There are also strong indications that my other children had been molested, but I can't confirm it because I haven't seen them in over 7 years. Furthermore, my youngest daughter is under the legal custody of a man who previously drugged and raped a teen. California Penal Code 236.1 dictates that "the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process" cannot be used to sex traffic a child. If there were to be any false determination of competency, it would affect my standing to protect my children. I used this law to make an argument to the judge that any evaluation would unlawful. Although the judge accepted this, my attorney indicated the Dr. Mangiameli would still submit a psychological evaluation into the record. I promptly filed a preemptive complaint with the California Board of Psychology. I included all the ALL the details of what is happening to my kids. I requested that he not submit any report, as no empirically valid assessment would be utilized, nor did he have my consent. Dr. Mangiameli went ahead anyhow and submitted into the record a report that indicated that I was mentally incompetent, despite not having my consent or participation. He indicated in the report that he viewed the evidence that the custodial father of my youngest daughter previously engaged in a drugging and rape, but it did nothing to deter him. He also stated that because I report the sexual abuse of my children to the District Attorney in 2017 that it could be an indication of a "psychiatric issue". At no point did Dr. Mangiameli confirm or disconfirm the abuse. He simply said that I was crazy for having reported it. I call on Dr. Mangiameli to retract the improper report that he filed. #sexualabuse #psychologist #drlynmangiameli #court
Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty today. This comes as no surprise to us because we called this case self-defense from literally the first day (https://ift.tt/2EDh7Wg), continued to call it self-defense after his testimony simply confirmed what we saw on film (https://ift.tt/3D6R9nE), and called the likelihood of conviction "almost impossible" after Judge Bruce Schroder dismissed the misdemeanor weapons charge (https://ift.tt/31ZcDFb). We agree with the jury's verdict and applaud them for giving this boy a fair trial. We believed that Rittenhouse was defending himself from day one when we were one of the first outlets to post his name with the conclusion that he acted in self-defense. Our self-defense conclusion was based on a series of videos from the shooting. The first video clearly showed Rittenhouse running away from Joseph Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, closed within feet of him, and at the last possible moment Rittenhouse opened fire. The other videos clearly showed Rittenhouse running down the street before being attacked, falling to the ground, and shooting two people after one of them attacked him with a skateboard and the other had a gun in his hand. Our earlier analysis was done under the assumption that Rittenhouse was engaged in unlawful conduct by being a minor in possession of a firearm. In that scenario he would have had a duty to flee before he could legally use force to defend himself. We concluded that it is hard to find a better example of someone fulfilling their duty to flee than Kyle Rittenhouse. Then Judge Schroeder dismissed the weapons charge, so we had to re-evaluate a little bit because without being unlawfully in possession of a gun, Rittenhouse had the right to stand his ground as a law abiding citizen. It was then that we realized his acquittal was a near certainty because he fled without having a duty to flee. This has been an awkward case for us because we usually support Black Lives Matter and Antifa in their efforts to fight the police, but at the same time we are against charging people with crimes they did not commit. Our defense of Rittenhouse was not a defense of his decision to go to Kenosha in the first place. We defended Rittenhouse because after reviewing the evidence we concluded that he was acting within the scope of the Wisconsin self-defense statute. We do not believe in charging people with crimes they did not commit for the sake of social justice. Just because someone is right wing doesn't make them a criminal and if the left abuses the courts to put right wingers in jail for crimes they did not commit then they are no better than the fascists they've been protesting. We have seen cases where the question of guilt of innocence seems have boiled down to a question of whether or not a defendant is a white supremacist. The political leanings of the defendant is almost always irrelevant to the question of guilt. #kylerittenhouse #bruceschroeder #selfdefense #antifa
Cop Blaster founder Cyrus Sullivan finally completed his final term of federal supervised release on Tuesday, November 16, 2021. This might come as a shock to some because many didn't realize that he was still on supervision after his original terms of supervision expired. SULLIVAN'S CASES Sullivan was originally on supervision for a 2013 guilty plea to making threatening communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. 875(c) the previous year. He was sentenced to two years in federal prison plus three years of supervised release. Before he was scheduled to be released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in 2014, he was charged with assaulting a federal employee and sentenced to a consecutive two year term plus three years of supervised released (https://ift.tt/3CwuiAD). Due to a bureaucratic error, Sullivan was sent to a high security United States Penitentiary in Victorville, California (USP Victorville) where he remained for the entirety of his sentence because even after he got his classification error corrected he had too little time left on his sentence to qualify for a transfer (https://ift.tt/3qROlHQ). While at USP Victorville he was beaten and tortured by staff in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) for which Sullivan obtained a $10,000 settlement after suing the feds while acting as his own attorney (https://ift.tt/2OvKm2g). Sullivan was first released from BOP custody in May of 2016, but he was found guilty of violating a condition of his supervision the following year. Sullivan had been ordered not to use a computer without permission from his probation officer. That condition was later changed after the Ninth Circuit ruled such conditions to be unconstitutional in an unrelated case. Sullivan received new conditions requiring him to install monitoring software on his computer and prohibiting him from operating his business. The court justified the former on the grounds that his instant offense involved using a computer to send a threatening email to someone and the court justified the latter by saying that his business was related to the offense due to the person he threatened provoking him in a dispute over his business. All would have been well, but probation abused the monitoring condition by installing software that ruined any computer Sullivan had it installed on. He disabled the monitoring software and posted a guide to help others do the same in an effort to discourage probation from using that software (https://ift.tt/325GDtR). After his probation officer filed a petition to revoke his supervision, he fought back by aggregating publicly available information pertaining to those responsible for his persecution and launching this website. Sullivan was detained as a "danger to the community" in February of 2017 while the disposition of his violation was pending. It was the government's hope that they could hold him long enough to bring this site down. Sullivan's 2012 prosecution was motivated primarily by the desire to shut down the websites he operated at the time and it worked, but only because Sullivan was arrested at a lucky time for them. Sullivan was prepared the second time, so the site stayed up the entire time he was in jail. Sullivan would then threaten to post information (including home addresses) of jail staff if they did or didn't do certain things. Eventually they had enough and assaulted Sullivan by breaking his left arm in a secluded cell. They tried to cover up their tracks by charging Sullivan with assault, but eventually an expert witness provided proof that Sullivan's explanation was the only one given capable of explaining his injury (https://ift.tt/2ZmKgfm). He was offered a sentence of time served if he pled to a lesser charge and he took the offer. Sullivan was sentenced to three years of supervision for impeding a federal officer on November 28, 2018. He was sentenced by a judge from the District of Arizona because Sullivan had run off his Oregon judge by sending a letter to his home from jail asking him to recuse himself. The Arizona judge gave Sullivan a fresh start with the court and she treated him fairly. Sullivan also got lucky with the state of the law at the time of his guilty plea. Because he was a pre-trial detainee the entire time he was being held on the new charge that time was counted towards supervision on his old cases. Sullivan had finished serving his violation sentence in August of 2017 and received two years of supervision following that. Since his new term of supervision was concurrent to his new one and his time as a pretrial detainee was concurrent to it, he finished his two year term of supervision in those cases in late August of 2019. At that point he re-launched several sites that were part of his original business. He was already able to operate Cop Blaster without violating his conditions in the old cases because it was new and thus not related to his old business. SULLIVAN ON SUPERVISION Sullivan's time on supervision was an unusual one for probation, the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), and the court. Probation assigned Sullivan a new probation officer for a fresh start and that officer always treated Sullivan reasonably. Every once in awhile he would show up unannounced and question Sullivan about his online activities. Usually it was in response to complaints he received from law enforcement. There was the time that Sullivan posted the home address of then Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf (https://ift.tt/3f9yc76), showed up at the trial of a jailhouse buddy before posting information about witnesses in the case (https://ift.tt/3g1Mesh), and other times that complaints were forwarded to probation about pending investigations into Sullivan's online activities. The officer's questions usually centered around Sullivan's intent behind the publication of home addresses. Sullivan always answered that he only includes such information when it improves the user experience, could be used to plan peaceful protests, or improves public safety by letting people know places to avoid. Sullivan had put a block on the home address field of reports about police officers, prosecutors, judges, corrections, and probation that is programmed to to stop working if he is prevented from logging into his account for more than 14 days for any reason (https://ift.tt/3co9DUW), but he still pastes addresses into the descriptions of reports sometimes. Sullivan realized that the block would give law enforcement a good motive to treat him fairly by not looking for lame excuses to put him in jail, but that not having the block would make his site nothing but a target. Sullivan made it easy for probation not to find excuses to lock him up by living a law abiding lifestyle. That was never hard for Sullivan because he has never lived a criminal lifestyle. He just lost his temper online one day, got 2 years for it, and has such a low tolerance to being bossed around that the likelihood of him being able to serve any lengthy prison term without acquiring new charges for assaulting staff is nearly zero. Sometimes how somebody behaves in prison is not indicative of how well they will do in society and Sullivan is one such case. A case in which the best way to protect society from future crimes is to let the prisoner go. The USAO had agreed as a condition of his plea not to seek any sort of conditions that would restrict him from operating his websites in any way while on supervision in the new case. This meant that they couldn't respond to complaints from the public by seeking new release conditions unless those complaints included proof of criminal activity. As a result, the USAO never sought new conditions from the court no matter how many complaints were forwarded to their office from other law enforcement agencies. The Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) assigned to the case typically responded by telling other agencies that Sullivan was not violating any law or court conditions. This may have been confusing for some because the original AUSA assigned to Sullivan's cases had argued in court that his business was illegal. The Daily Caller pointed this out in an article last year (https://ift.tt/313cv4s), but Sullivan did not tell Daily Caller that he was still on supervision because he didn't want to burden his probation officer with a flood of frivolous complaints. Now that he is free to discuss his status he feels that his status as a supervisee at the time that article came out proves that his business was never illegal. Had the business been illegal he could have been charged with violating his terms of supervision by engaging in new criminal conduct. One thing that surely played a role in that not happening was a special part of his plea agreement which required the USAO to be consulted by probation before filing charges of violations with the court. The purpose of that condition was to protect Sullivan from being wrongfully charged with a violation because without it all a probation officer needs to violate someone is "probably cause." This was a source of great vindication for Sullivan who feels that he can finally prove once and for all that he never should have been charged with a crime related to his business model in the first place. The court scheduled status conferences with the parties ever few months. These conferences served primarily as a way for the government and the court to discuss concerns regarding Sullivan's online activities. There were a few times when the court thought Sullivan got close to the line, but never crossed it. Sullivan didn't agree with every decision the judge made, but always felt she treated him fairly. He started trying to get released from supervision early many months ago and wasn't let off until just now, but other than keeping him on a leash longer than he liked he can't think of anything to complain about. The status conferences did give Sullivan some useful insight into how often the government received complaints about him, which was on a regular basis. The judge always respected Sullivan's First Amendment rights even though she made it clear that she often didn't agree with how he exercised those rights. She did what a judge is supposed to do. She enforced the law. She didn't look for excuses to bend the law to her liking like her predecessor did. Oddly, Sullivan's picture appearing in The New York Times earlier this year never came up (https://ift.tt/3xlzd61). Sullivan doubts that probation was unaware of the article, but that they knew it was irrelevant to his performance on supervision. Sullivan also found it odd that no journalist that interviewed him while on supervision bothered to ask if he was on supervision. One would think that investigative reporters from The New York Times and Daily Caller would have tried to figure out if he were under any type of court supervision, but apparently now. CONCLUSION All Cyrus Sullivan ever needed to successfully complete his term of federal supervised release was a judge, prosecutor, and probation officer that upheld the Constitution. #copblaster #cyrussullivan #uspvictorville #nwrrc #usprobation
Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the misdemeanor weapons charge against Kyle Rittenhouse today on the grounds that Rittenhouse's rifle was too long to qualify for prohibition under the statute. Without that charge it will be almost impossible for the state to argue that Rittenhouse was engaged in criminal activity at the time that Joseph Rosenbaum attacked him. We say almost impossible because the state is still permitted to pursue a provocation theory based on grainy FBI footage taken from a aerial drone which they claim shows Rittenhouse move towards Rosenbaum before Rosenbaum chased him. All of our prior analysis of this case (https://ift.tt/3omooNG) was based on two things we thought we knew for sure. First, that Rittenhouse had a duty to flee before he could legally defend himself because as a minor in possession of a firearm he was engaged in criminal activity. Second, that Rittenhouse was running away from Joseph Rosenbaum when he opened fire. Now we have to change our analysis because the first assumption is no longer valid. Unless the state can show that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had a legal right to stand his ground. Despite having a legal right to stand his ground he chose to flee before shooting Rosenbaum at the last minute. Those facts warrant acquittal unless provocation took place and that provocation was intended to provoke a response that would otherwise justify self-defense. Under Wisconsin law someone waives their right to stand their ground if they provoke someone into attacking them for the purpose of giving them an excuse to defend themselves. Self-defense in Wisconsin is governed by statute 939.48 which reads in part, "A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense." There is zero evidence in the record suggesting that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum for that purpose. We argued previously that one could consider showing up at a Black Lives Matter protest to support the police with an illegally possessed firearm to be a provocative act. That argument was based on a different part of the statute which creates a duty to flee when engaged in an unlawful act likely to provoke others. Without being unlawfully in possession of a firearm we cannot think of any unlawful provocative action that Rittenhouse engaged in. The state's grainy drone surveillance footage is not convincing in this case because even if Rittenhouse moved towards Rosenbaum before being chased that is not enough by itself to constitute the type of provocative action which creates a duty to flee. The footage is too blurry to show anything beyond which circled figure moves which direction. It doesn't show if Rittenhouse raised his rifle at Rosenbaum and there is no audio so you can't tell if he provoked him with words. The footage is of a quality reminiscent of a UFO sighting in which one person claims to have seen a flying saucer, another claims it was a weather balloon, and for all we know it was neither. Even when we thought Rittenhouse had a duty to flee we reached the conclusion that he fulfilled that duty admirably. In ever piece of footage we reviewed we could see him running away before shooting. First, he ran away from Rosenbaum and opened fire only after Rosenbaum got within feet of him. Second, he ran down the street while being chased by a mob, fell down, was attacked, and only then shot people who had either attacked him or was holding a gun. It is hard to find a better example of someone attempting to flee than Kyle Rittenhouse. #kylerittenhouse #bruceschroeder #selfdefense #antifa
The media is buzzing with Judge Bruce Schroeder's decision to allow the jury to consider provocation in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. This is a big decision and we think it is the right decision. The prosecution will argue that Rittenhouse provoked Joseph Rosenbaum and therefore should have been required to exhaust all other options before shooting him. However, our analysis supports the conclusion that Rittenhouse did in fact exhaust all other options, which leaves just one remaining argument that the prosecution might try to make which we don't think there is enough evidence to support. WISCONSIN SELF DEFENSE LAW Self defense claims are governed by Wisconsin statute 939.48 titled "Self-defense and defense of others." The part of the statute relevant to provocation reads as follows: (2)Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows: (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant. (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant. (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense. - https://ift.tt/2YZzvA9 Under that statute provocation can impact a self-defense claim in three possible ways. First, a person who engages in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others (like showing up at a BLM protest supporting police while unlawfully possessing a gun) is not entitled to use deadly force in self-defense unless the attack places the person in reasonable fear of great bodily harm and has exhausted all possible means of escape. Second, if the provocateur withdraws from a fight and gives notice of such a withdraw they can defend themselves if attacked again. Third, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the provocateur engaged in provocative conduct for the purpose of provoking an attack that would otherwise give him an excuse to use force in self-defense he forfeits his right to self defense. We think the first clause here is relevant to the Rittenhouse case. We don't think the other two apply because there was no fight for Rittenhouse to withdraw from and no evidence introduced suggests that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum for the specific purpose of giving himself an excuse to defend himself. We think that one could successfully argue that the act of showing up at a BLM/Antifa anti-police protest to show support for law enforcement is by itself an act likely to provoke other people. When a person shows up at such an event with a firearm they cannot legally possess they are engaged in unlawful conduct. For those reasons we believe that Rittenhouse had a legal obligation to flee before he could legally use force to defend himself. At the same time our analysis of the video evidence in this case from day one has shown that Rittenhouse fulfilled his duty to flee (https://ift.tt/2EDh7Wg). In fact, it is hard to think of a better example of someone fulfilling their duty to flee than Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse ran away from Joseph Rosenbaum as fast as he could, Rosenbaum continued to chase him, and it wasn't until Rosenbaum closed within a couple feet of Rittenhouse that he opened fire. Rittenhouse continued to fulfill his duty to flee by running down the street towards the police. He was then chased and attacked again. He was hit with a skateboard, fell to the ground, was kicked in the face, shot at the kicker, shot the guy with the skateboard when he attacked him again, and shot a third guy while holding a pistol in the arm he shot him in. This case is self-defense. The only way that we could see a reasonable juror convict Kyle Rittenhouse would be if he had said something indicating that he was looking for an excuse to use his gun, but we are not aware of Rittenhouse making any such statements. They can't even find a witness claiming to have heard him say such things which is surprising in a high profile case like this. We are surprised nobody has come forward with a fabricated claim to have heard him confess to provoking Rosenbaum so that he could shoot him in self-defense. Absent such a statement it is not possible to prove that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum for that purpose beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a recording taken before Rittenhouse went to Kenosha in which he voiced a desire to shoot BLM protesters outside a CVS store, but that evidence was excluded. It was excluded because its prejudicial potential outweighed its evidentiary value. Your average idiot that is too stupid to get out of doing jury duty is far too likely to think that such evidence proves he went to Kenosha with the premediated intent to shoot people. An intelligent person would of course say something like, "wait a minute, he never says anything about going to Kenosha, planning to shoot people, or provoking people to give himself an excuse to defend himself." Had Rittenhouse said something like "I'm going to Kenosha and I'm going to shoot some of them," or "I'll just walk around with a rifle shouting my support for the cops until one of them attacks me so I can shoot him in self-defense," or something of identical meaning that would be different story. However, ranting on camera about some homicidal fantasy does not specifically prove that he went to Kenosha to make his fantasy reality. WE ARE NOT WHITE SUPREMACISTS We feel the need to disclaim the fact that we are not white supremacists due to the sentiment online that anyone who doesn't believe that Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty must be a white supremacist. This is being thrown around a lot by people on the far-left right now. We were not going to add this disclaimer, but yesterday we noticed a Tweet from someone with Antifa that we've worked with in the past saying something like "Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty, no one who isn't a white supremacist disagrees." We are going to leave the name of the author out of this article because we rather like him for the most part and don't want to sabotage our ability to work with him in the future. Still, we feel the need to say how frustrating it is to read such things. We feel that it is a form of manipulation employed by the far-left when they are afraid of losing an argument. A smokescreen intended to stop people from taking a closer look and make those that have afraid to speak out unless they are willing to risk being labeled a white supremacist. We experienced a similar issue in Portland, Oregon last year when covering the Jeremy Christian case. In that case, this author spent three months locked up with Jeremy in the Multnomah County Detention Center (MCDC) in late 2018. During that time Jeremy was my neighbor and recreation partner, so I got to know him really well. The man I came to know is nothing like the person depicted by the press. During our time together he told me everything about his case and I told him that if the evidence supported what he told me that I would support him during his trial. When I went to the opening statements and watched the videos from the train I saw first hand that he was telling me the truth. To this day I have yet to catch him in a lie. It would have been much easier for me if I had caught him in a lie because when I started telling people what was really going on I was falsely accused of being a lying white supremacist. People that knew nothing about the case besides what they saw on the news were of the opinion that only a white supremacist would defend Jeremy Christian in any way. I kept getting pressured to stop defending him. If I wrote an article detailing false statements made by a witness people would accuse me of intimidating a victim, report my Facebook page for "hate speech," and call me a liar. To this day there are still people giving me a hard time just because I looked at the evidence and told people what I saw. WHY DEFEND RIGHT WINGERS? So, if I'm not a white supremacist why do I defend right wingers? I do it because I know that the most extreme cases are the ones most likely create bad precedent in the courts that the government will use to violate peoples rights down the road. When the public is crying for blood the government often doesn't care how they answer the cries. Often prosecutors will pursue meritless claims knowing that if the defense cannot keep those claims out of a jury's hands they are likely to win. Then appellate courts are reluctant to overturn the conviction and precedent is established to be used against others. For instance, when I was in prison a fellow inmate asked me if I had read the BOP's announcement about a new law allowing sex offenders to be civilly committed as "sexually dangerous persons." I was like, "I'm not a sex offender, what do I care? WTF are you implying?" He said that he wasn't implying anything, but that he knew I was a legal beagle so I should look at the law closely because it could serve as a foundation for holding anyone after they've done their time for psychiatric reasons. I looked at the law and learned he was right. Under that law certain sex offenders could be civilly committed at the end of their prison sentence if deemed a "sexually dangerous person" by a BOP doctor. It occurred to me that if such legislation is upheld following what are sure to be legal challenges down the road that there wouldn't be much if anything to stop Congress from striking the word "sexually" and allowing anyone deemed a "dangerous person" for any reason to be committed to a mental institution at the end of their sentence. Ever since I have been against civilly committing "sexually dangerous persons." Cases in which people are more likely to disregard the rights of the accused in pursuit of the outcome they want need to be watched the closest. For instance, one of Jeremy Christian's convictions was an Assault II charge for throwing a plastic bottle half full of booze at a woman the night before the stabbing. The bottle hit her in the eye and left her with a bruise. Christian was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon. If that stands then it will create precedent for charging anyone that throws a plastic bottle full of liquid at someone's face with Assault II. Assault II carries a mandatory minimum of 5 years in state prison. Is nailing someone you think is a white supremacist worth exposing everyone to a 5 year sentence just for throwing a plastic bottle at someone? Of course its not. The only people that think it is worth it are those that support a double standard in prosecutorial decisions. The standard of only enforcing certain laws under certain circumstances against certain people when those certain people are alleged white supremacists. There are many such people on the far-left. People that think having the right people in the right places will make sure that only far-right personalities will suffer the wrath of selective prosecution. To their credit they are often correct, but the problem with their position is that the same flaws in the system which permit this to happen can just as easily be used against them by the wrong people. In Portland, Oregon far-left demonstrators rarely face prosecution for property damaged during mostly peaceful protests, but if they did the same thing in a red state they would most certainly be sent to prison. They would be treated similarly to right-wingers prosecuted in liberal communities for conduct offensive to most in that area. We would come to the defense of the far-left if we thought they were being treated like Kyle Rittenhouse. If there were a right wing rally in the deep south and BLM were to show up with rifles to protect black businesses we would support their right to do so. If one of their people were attacked, ran away, got chased, and fired when the pursuer finally caught up we would call that self-defense. If prosecutors were to throw the book at him hoping an all white jury would convict him out of hatred for BLM we would call that racist. The only difference between that scenario and this one is that the discrimination is coming from leftists instead of racists. WE ARE NOT LIBTARDS We find it ironic that some leftists have been calling us a right-wing outlet because usually right wingers are calling us libtards. They call us libtards because we advocate against police misconduct committed against people of color and racial justice protesters far more often than we defend right wingers. They think we must be far-left, but they are not right either. We support things like gun rights, free speech, freedom of religion, and other things conservatives cherish. We oppose censorship on social media because even though we don't agree with most of what the right has to say we also think they have a right to speak just like anyone else. We oppose left wing tyranny which can be just as bad as right wing tyranny. Joseph Stalin killed way more civilians than Adolf Hitler did. We supported the right wing militias that took up arms against the federal government in Bunkerville and Malheur because they were fighting for civil rights that the Constitution entitles them to. The liberties they were fighting for are a lot like the liberties BLM is fighting for. Both groups want the government to honor their oath to uphold the Bill of Rights. CONCLUSION The Rittenhouse jury should consider provocation as a factor in the case, but they should also conclude that Rittenhouse fulfilled his duty to flee. We are not saying this to support the far-right any more than our speech in defense of BLM is intended to support the far-left. We want to remain neutral in that regard so that anyone can rely on us to look at allegations of government overreach objectively. #kylerittenhouse #bruceschroeder #selfdefense #jeremychristian
Kyle Rittenhouse proved that he is one brave boy by testifying in his own defense today. It takes a lot of guts to get up there and expose yourself to the liability of cross examination when you're on trial for your life. You can watch his full testimony in the video embedded below this article. His testimony is quite long, so the purpose of this article is to highlight the most relevant timestamps. 44:00 - Rittenhouse is sworn and questioning begins. 1:04:45 - Rittenhouse testifies that Joseph Rosenbaum, a convicted sex offender (https://ift.tt/2QpqQCq), threatened to kill him twice. 1:17:50 - Rittenhouse testifies that he didn't notice Rosenbaum again until he ambushed him from behind a car at the lot. 1:20:00 - Rittenhouse breaks down in tears as he describes being cornered by Rosenbaum and trying to run away. Then the judge orders a recess so that Kyle can compose himself because he didn't seem able to finish telling his story without crying. He probably suffers from PTSD which causes people to fell like they're reliving traumatic events at times. 1:38:30 - Rittenhouse resumes his testimony composed. 1:39:50 - Rittenhouse describes being chased by Rosenbaum at the car lot. He says that Rosenbaum threw something at him, continued to gain ground, someone fired a gunshot, and Rittenhouse turned around. At that point Rosenbaum was directly behind him, coming at him full speed with his arms extended, and even touched the barrel of his gun. 1:41:15 - Rittenhouse's lawyer asks "why didn't you just keep running?" A very important question because Rittenhouse as a someone engaged in criminal activity (being a minor in possession of a firearm) had a duty to flee before he could legally defend himself. Rittenhouse explains that there was no space for him to continue to run. Rosenbaum was still lunging at him, so he shot him. 1:42:45 - Rittenhouse explains that when he went to check on Rosenbaum he heard other people yelling "get his ass" so he took off running. 1:4500 - Rittenhouse describes Anthony Huber (https://ift.tt/32zPnue) holding a skateboard like a baseball bat and swinging it at him as he tried to run away. He says that he blocked the skateboard with his left arm, but it still hit him in the neck. He continued to run down the street until he tripped and fell. While on the ground he felt a rock hit him in the back of the head. He noticed he was surrounded by a group of people, so he pointed his rifle at them to keep them from coming closer. All but one person backed off. That one person, whose never been identified, jump kicked him in the face. He fired two shots at him, but missed, and the guy backed off. Then Huber hit him in the neck with his skateboard again, grabbed his gun, and started pulling it away from him. He fired one shot which killed Huber. He then saw Gaige Grosskreutz with his hands up and pistol in his hand, but waited until he pointed the pistol at him before shooting him in the arm. Then he walked towards the police line, but the police threatened to pepper spray him and told him to go home, so he went home. 1:57:50 - Cross examination begins. 2:01:17 - Judge Bruce Schroeder (https://ift.tt/3w4L4FG) admonishes District Attorney Thomas Binger (https://ift.tt/2HYLlF6) for attempting to unlawfully use Rittenhouse's invocation of his Constitutional right to remain silent against him. 2:52:00 - Court is recessed for lunch. 4:09:40 - Court resumes. Defense counsel states their intention to file a motion for a mistrial with prejudice due to the state repeatedly commenting on Rittenhouse's right to remain silent. 4:34:00 - Cross examination resumes. 6:03:50 - Court is recessed for a short break. 6:27:00 - Cross examination resumes. 7:23:10 - Cross examination ends. We think that Rittenhouse made an excellent witness for himself. With the exception of the time he broke down crying he handled himself really well. He didn't have to testify and we think he could have made his case without doing so, but sometimes it is best to tell the jury yourself what really happened. It also helps to humanize the defendant in a case in which the press has already convicted him. This author recalls the time I testified in my own defense at a trial. It was a judge trial with no jury and I was only charged with misdemeanors, but it was an experience that helps me relate to Rittenhouse. In fact, I think he handled himself way better than I did. I got the impression when I was sentenced to 4 months in county jail that my testimony made the judge think I was something like a sociopath or just a smug jerk. I was only convicted of reckless endangerment and one of the state's witnesses supported my version of events, but the judge chose to believe the state's other witnesses even though they changed their story. I can't help but think that I would have gotten a shorter sentence had my attitude not been on display due to my testimony. We think that Rittenhouse sincerely feared for his safety and used the least amount of force that was reasonable under the circumstances. The fact that he only shot people that attacked him demonstrated that. The evidence at this trial supports the conclusion we reached last year after reviewing the video evidence (https://ift.tt/2EDh7Wg). #kylerittenhouse #thomasbinger #bruceschroeder #selfdefense
Miami Police officer Khadijha Hardemon was arrested today for punching another woman at a Millennium Tour concert at FTX Arena on Friday, at around 8:45 p.m. According to media reports, Hardemon's ex-boyfriend was at that concert with their 3 year old child and another woman. Hardemon confronted the pair by poking the man in the back of the neck before returning to her seat. She came back later, probably after having a few drinks, and punched the other woman causing her to fall to the floor. Police reviewed video footage which showed that Hardemon was the aggressor and arrested her on two counts of domestic battery due to the incident taking place in front of their child. The Miami Police Department (MPD) has placed Hardemon on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an internal investigation. According to public records, Khadijha Cache Hardemon is a 27 year old resident of Miami, Florida. She is a registered Democrat with a history of minor traffic violations. According to Gov. Salaries she made over $64,000 a year as a MPD officer (https://ift.tt/3D1r0X7). #khadijhahardemon #assault #domesticviolence
Former Rochester Police officer Joshua Laber has been through the revolving door at the local jail a few times in recent years. His most recent troubles began in March of 2020 when he was charged for having a "significant relationship" with a minor under the age of 16 until she told police about it. She also said that Laber put a camera in the bathroom when she was showing, so investigators got a warrant for his computer which contained child pornography. He was released on a $40,000 unconditional bail (https://ift.tt/307yQji). Then in May of this year he was charged with witness tampering for trying to get his victim to change her story (https://ift.tt/3xJgXDT). He was released on $20,000 bail. This past weekend he was arrested for drunk driving, obstruction of justice, and assaulting a police officer after crashing his vehicle, running away, leading officers on a short foot pursuit, and kicking an arresting officer before blowing a .19. According to the Olmsted County website, Laber is currently incarcerated pending arraignment on his new charges at the Olmsted County Adult Detention Center (https://ift.tt/3C3RciQ). We hope that the judge will not grant bail so easily this time. We would say we were shocked to see an accused child molester like Laber make bail so easily and get so many second chances, but it happens all the time, especially when the accused is a current or former police officer. Even when a cop leaves the force he is still a part of that fraternity. Laber resigned from the Rochester Police Department for unknown reasons in 2015. In 2017, Laber was convicted of violating a domestic abuse protective order in Olmsted County (case number 55CR168775). According to public records, Joshua Paul Laber is a 44 year old resident of Rochester, Minnesota. His last known home address is 6664 Clarkia Drive NW. We are exempting Laber from our usual courtesy of censoring home addresses of police officers because he is charged with sex crimes involving a minor. That enough is enough for us to post a home address, but on top of that he has demonstrated himself to be a danger to his victim as well as the community while on bail. We hope that by posting his address that parents will know to keep their kids away from that location and the rest of the community will exercise caution in the area. Please do not use this information for any unlawful purpose. #joshualaber #dui #sexoffenders #childpornography #childmolestation
In July 2020 Adam got mad after a big argument with a hooker he and lance partied with every other week. The hooker use to party with both of them doing coke and nasty nasty things not meant to repeated. They liked her cause she was young mid 20s and looked a child. He would always get high a mentioned how he wish he could find a kid (someone under 18) to please him. Adam got caught attempting to find a new hooker and snitched on a guy he met through the prostitute that would smoke weed them. Adam told the guy he had a legal weed card and didnt know what dispensary sold the best weed. After Adam got caught by the Oklahoma Vice trying to buy a woman he called the guy asked him to go to dispensary. The poor guy fell for it ended up getting his house raided arrested and losing almost everything he had over a palm size amount of Marijuana. The guy got charged with distribution of Marijuana for getting weed from store and giving it to someone he thought had a card. Adam and Lance are from Canton OK Fairview OK area last known home location is Edmond. Their known to visit strip bars looking for hookers and bribe them to do coke ( Ill give u an 100 if u do a line) so they can take advantage of them. If u meet either one of these guys run. #undercovercokeweedgaysnitchworkswithokcvicewatchout
Rachel Renee Frisby, 43, Duncanville, TX has been a confidential Informant working for Lieutenant M. Stogner And Sargeant N. Roach since 2016. She has assisted with several narcotic busts' over the years. Recently Rachel assisted officers in 3 major drug bust in Dallas County, and Ellis County. #duncanville #texas #rachelfrisby
ssssdddsdssssssdsddcfcffdfghhvgfffggyjugggffijhfdyihfghgfukgdghjgsdyugddjkgdxhjxdgjhdjkjhhjhhgghkiggjikghjhj #snitch------informant
Kyle Rittenhouse showed up for his murder trial as a fee man sporting what looks like a jailhouse haircut thanks to whoever shaved his sideburns shaving too far and probably making things worse by trying to correct the error with more shaving. The end result is a giant patch of hair missing from the right side of his head right above where his sideburn should be. FreeKyleUSA.com claims to have raised over $600,000 for his legal defense. You'd think with all that money they could buy the boy a barber so that he doesn't look like a weirdo in front of the jury. Too late though since you only get one chance to make a first impression. Maybe they should consider shaving his head so that at least he looks like he chose to look the way he does. #kylerittenhouse #badhair
We don't normally defend cops here at Cop Blaster, but this is a rare exception. Chicago Police officer Oneta Sampson Carney was arrested for defending her own property against thieves while off-duty by shooting at her own SUV while some teenage boys fled the scene with her vehicle. Prosecutors seem to be using a legal loophole that prevents people from claiming self defense when using potentially deadly force in defense of personal property. This loophole is something our founder knows all too well having been prosecuted for responding illegally in a case where he was the real victim. When someone steals a car, breaks into a home, or otherwise commits a crime against a person or their property they have the right to respond. Unfortunately, the law only recognizes that right in cases where there is an imminent threat to someone's life. As a result you can't legally shoot a car thief as he escapes with your car. One might be quick to call such action self defense because the perp would otherwise be able to escape with your property. If the law were in fact just it would support using deadly force in defense of property, but it is not. All over America innocent people are going to jail because they were victimized and fought back (ex: that couple that stood outside their home with guns to deter trespassers https://ift.tt/30vtOdh). The case of officer Carney is one such case. She is now charged with reckless discharge of a firearm. The thieves were later arrested. This scenario is also categorically different than had she shot a fleeing suspect while on duty. When a cop is off duty they are legally the same as a civilian. Civilians are morally justified shooting thieves that are trying to make off with their stuff. That is not the same as a uniformed officer shooting a suspect just for running away. Had she been on duty shooting at a stranger making off with some random person's car we would not be defending her. We are defending her for being a property owner defending her property. The founder of Cop Blaster knows all too well what it is like to be the real victim in a case and labeled a criminal. In 2012 he was targeted by a deranged stalker. That stalker had filed false police reports against him, swatted a member of his immediate family, and did not heed warnings to cease her activities. When he found undeniable proof that she was responsible for stalking him he told her that if she screwed with him again that he would kill her. Then she screwed with him against and he sent an email announcing his intention to kill her for not taking his previous warning seriously. She took the threat to the police, he was arrested, and sentenced to 24 months in federal prison. Even after he was able to show that he was the real victim she was never charged and everything he did was twisted to sound as if she were acting reasonably in response to lawful activities of his that had a detrimental impact on her personal reputation. A just prosecutor would have let him go the second he realized that she had committed a crime against him first. We hope that Officer Carney finds justice in this case. Making off with stolen property should not be a safe activity. #onetacarney #selfdefense #carjacking #theft