See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Cops Who Arrested Man For Attempting To Re-Enter His Own Home Praised
Source:
INFOWARS
URL Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/article ... ne2008/061908_cops_praised.htm
Published: Jun 19, 2008
Author: Paul Joseph Watson
Post Date: 2008-06-19 18:06:48 by Rotara
Keywords: None
Views: 527
Comments: 41
Police who apprehended Iowan at checkpoint with guns drawn "acted appropriately," man charged with assault with a deadly weapon, faces 5 years behind bars Cops who arrested a man at gunpoint for attempting to re-enter his flood-wrecked home in Cedar Rapids Iowa will not be disciplined and were in fact praised for acting "appropriately" as the man they apprehended was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and faces five years behind bars. As we reported yesterday, "strike teams" consisting of police, firemen and government employees have been breaking into houses of flood victims and threatening anyone who questions their actions in complete violation of the 4th amendment right that protects against unlawful search and seizure. No-knock home invasions are being carried out under the flimsy pretext of "checking for structural damage" and residents are being prevented from returning to their own homes whether they want to or not. Police checkpoints have been set up in the affected areas to block access to streets and homes. It was at one such checkpoint that Trooper Scott Devereaux and Trooper Paul Gardner were photographed arresting Ricky Blazek, 53, at gunpoint after smashing his window and hauling him out of his pick-up truck. Blazek had dared to try and return to his home to check the damage without it first being properly inspected by the government's friendly "strike teams". "The Iowa State Patrol said Wednesday that two state troopers were justified in arresting a Cedar Rapids man who tried to run a checkpoint Monday in an effort to return to his flood-damaged home," reports the Des Moines Register. "The State Patrol will not conduct an internal affairs investigation of the incident, state officials said." For his trouble, Blazek has now been charged with assault with a dangerous weapon on a peace officer, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. A similar incident almost boiled over into a confrontation when one resident dared question why the "strike teams" were breaking down doors and climbing through windows of homes without even knocking first. Police Officer Josh Bell threatened the man with arrest if he didn't shut his mouth. This occurred after Cedar Rapids police chief Greg Graham promised residents over the weekend that "Law enforcement officers are not entering homes." Poster Comment: Five years behind bars and he didn't even get to run over one of the SOBs? What a waste.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 39.
#1. To: Rotara (#0)
The cops should be the oness going to prison. No jury is going to convict him, charges will be dropped, and he'll get a bagful of money.
You are naive. He will be convicted. American criminal courts are Star Chambers that would have made Stalin proud. The courts and the prosecutors are just two sides of the same coin. They preselect the jury pool, eliminating anyone that may not go along with a police state. Anyone good person that somehow gets on the jury pool will be excluded during jury selection. Then the court will only allow evidence that the prosecutor wants.
In all fairness to our effed-up system, it will have to go to a GrandJury first. I realize that they can indict a ham sandwich, but there is still hope at this level with the tape...which I hope will be played for the jurors.
In Connecticut (the Constitution State), many moons ago, it was decided by our wise legislators that a Grand Jury was too expensive. So, the Grand Jury was whittled-down to the Grand Jury Judge. Also, sometime in the early 1960's, county government was too expensive; so that was abolished. So, what happened with the Sheriffs, you might ask. They were reduced to process servers and prisoner transfer agents. Yet, they still upheld the tradition of graft. When all this happened I was in high school; it mystified me. No one could give me an answer as to why this was happening. I do recall that a few years back that there was a complaint that the Fed List of jurors for Connecticut didn't include enough Latinos; so, there is a Fed list. FWIW.
When all this happened I was in high school; it mystified me. No one could give me an answer as to why this was happening. My scruffy tax reb buddies explained that to me 25 years ago. Because a sheriff is elected he can defy a court order and no judge can "take his badge". A police chief is a political hack who cheerfully does the bidding of his wormy masters, including support for gun grabs and other onerous schemes heaved up by the enemy. If the IRS or state drug agents wish to execute raids, seizures or undercover ops they must secure the informed consent of the common law sheriff. Police chiefs never fail to cooperate because the municipal lawyers/solicitors explain to them that it's "all nice and legal like." and they'd better go along "if they know what's good for them." Simply put, a sheriff with clean hands can defy the feds, but a police chief can be intimidated by any city council president that can be intimidated by the feds. So, if one council member is dirty the entire police department becomes a manipulated extension of that corruption. Imagine a foreign power that controls WASH DC not being able to control a county, and you'll understand the cruel, Southern Sheriff stereotype that is so popular in Hollywood films. An international porn merchant or ecstasy smuggler that gets snagged out in the county can't just skate out of jail in some jurisdictions. No, the big guys who bribe senators over our heads in Leer jets prefer dealing with (former New Orleans) Police Superintendent Eddie Compass and Mayor Ray Nagin because they can be bought, blackmailed or replaced. It was an AZ Sheriff who got the unfunded mandate of the Brady Law (background checks but no money to pay for it) overturned because he had the courage and integrity to challenge it. Can you picture New York's or Boston's Chief resisting increased gun control for any reason? In short we are generally better served by an elected sheriff than an appointed chief. Of course the sheriffs in the largest counties such as Los Angeles, Orange, (CA) Dade, Broward, Palm Beach (FL) have been taken over by alien-dominated political parties (there's enough at stake to justify the war funds) and are no better than the wormy, big city hack chiefs. But generally speaking the same folks who are warring on American freedom are targeting sheriffs, because they can still stand between the people and harm's way in the form of UN-inspired and/or federal reserve bank mandates. 60 MINUTES had a great story about a Georgia sheriff who was just too anxious to cooperate with GA drug agents, and because marijuana is now America's number one cash crop and farmers wish to farm at a profit for a change, they elected a new sheriff who refuses to allow any drug ops in their county. It may be hard to believe that the sons and daughters of the bib overall-wearing good ol' boys of 40 years ago (who used to sing along with Merle's OKIE FROM MUSKOGEE) were the ones to openly call BS on the phony drug war. They know that reefa ain't opium, and they may even enjoy a few choice buds from a successful planting season their damn selves! Hell, if it's no more illegal than bootlegging corn squeezins' (in fact it's probably easier and less risky because buying sugar in quantities is now a bust, and a profitable suitcase load of wildwood weed won't offer the cops a telltale truck that's riding low on the springs) and smoking alone (that is no alcohol involved) results in no database of blindness, car accidents or domestic violence, then, the only reason to keep marijuana illegal is to keep white wimmen from submitting to the lusty advances of hot blooded Mexicans who get 'em hooked on it!
I guess I should have said, the new sheriff, Sam, seems ok, too. He had a bit of a 'problem' in some peoples' minds within the past couple of years. As I recall, he had gone to Ada County for something or other--not in official capacity or county time. He had a couple of beers or drinks, and was stopped. The BAC was over the limit, borderline or barely, as I recall--but I'm not sure. Anyways, there are those who think he is on call 24/7 and should never have drank. Others don't think you should drink anyways. And then there's me and my ilk.......I don't have a problem with him NOT being on watch 24/7. I don't have a problem with him drinking some. I don't want him driving and drinking. I voted for him again. He's doing a very capable job.
There are no replies to Comment # 39. End Trace Mode for Comment # 39.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: Turtle (#1)
No jury is going to convict him, charges will be dropped, and he'll get a bagful of money.
#8. To: DWornock, Rotara, all (#5)
#10. To: lodwick (#8)
...it will have to go to a GrandJury first...
#36. To: rack42, christine, rowdee, Peppa, farmfriend, Jethro Tull (#10)
So, what happened with the Sheriffs, you might ask. They were reduced to process servers and prisoner transfer agents. Yet, they still upheld the tradition of graft.
#39. To: HOUNDDAWG (#36)
Replies to Comment # 39.