More Field Sobriety Test Hypocrisy

A Chicago Police officer, Richard Bolling who was charged with a fatal DUI crash in 2009, is now being claimed he passed a field sobriety test, AND a breathalyzer.   There are further claims that he did not receive any special treatment for being a police officer. 

So let's go over the norm...  You are involved in a fatal car accident, the police arrive.   Within minutes you would be issued a breathalyzer, if there was any alcohol at all on your breath, you would be arrested and processed since you just killed someone.   How did Richard Bolling get treated?

"It was four and a half hours after the crash, and only under pressure from an Internal Affairs sergeant, when Bolling submitted to a Breathalyzer and registered 0.079 percent, just under the legal limit of 0.08 percent, prosecutors said."

Yes... the lack of special treatment is VERY apparent in this case... 4.5 hours after the crash, he blew .001 under the legal limit... does this stink to anyone else, or just me?   It gets better though...

Prosecutors alleged in opening statements that Bolling, who was off-duty at the time, wasn’t given a field sobriety test until nearly two hours after he was arrested driving the wrong way down a street shortly after the crash. Officers at the scene said he passed the exam.

So he drove away from his accident... and got pulled over shortly after the crash going the wrong way on the roadway...   Meanwhile the same field sobriety test that is designed to incriminate non Law Enforcement Officials, managed to add evidence that Bolling wasn't impaired.   When the system is this broken, the only solution is to cut all funding to the offending agencies, and start them fresh with rules that prevent abuse.  

Of course his Law Enforcement Brothers were caught saying interesting things during the course of events:

According to court filings by prosecutors, an undisclosed superior officer was captured on a video recording at the crash scene telling Bolling he would “try to help you out as much as possible.”

Does this make sense to everyone now?   If you kill a 13 year old after drinking on the road, you are the scum of the earth, and many people would argue for the death penalty for you, or Lock you up for 20 years. But if a Police officer kills a 13 year old after drinking on the road... he's a great guy who just had an accident as illustrated by these media statements:

Bolling, who is expected to testify, joined the force in 1992 and had been working in the narcotics unit. The son of a retired Chicago police officer, Bolling received 20 honorable mentions and numerous department commendations and had no prior criminal record.

Imagine that, Bolling had no criminal record... hard to imagine he swung that feat, even though he BARELY got arrested for Vehicular Manslaughter!     The system doesn't work the same for you as it does for them, and then "they" wonder where the us vs. them attitude comes from.

IL officials charged with Misconduct

Former Mayor Randy Kirichkow, former police Chief Tom Fearn and former police Sgt. Brad McCaslin have been charged with official misconduct following video evidence that McCaslin tasered a handcuffed woman in the back of the neck then the police chief choked her.  Video HERE.

Winnebago County State's Attorney Joe Bruscato says an arrest video shows Fearn choking the woman after McCaslin applied a Taser to the back of her neck.
They also face aggravated battery and obstruction of justice charges, among others.

Kirichkow is charged with not taking action once he received information of the abuse.

New Pre-Dating Screening: Have you recently been with a Cop?

This article sums up a terribly twisted nightmare of a story, so my only advice is... ask if a girl has ever been... or dated a cop in her life... if the answer is yes... RUN!

I will attempt to summarize in order:

Matt Kohnen met a girl, and began dating her in the city of Swansea.  The woman had previously dated a man who is a police officer named Steve Epps in nearby Caseyville.   The police officer from Caseyville drove by the Swansea house, and ran the plates of an unknown Munie Greencare Professionals truck, was dissapointed to find no personal information, so he sent a fax to the Munie Greencare corporate office alleging the driver of the truck was driving recklessly, and the officer needed the name of the employee.

The Munie HR department provided Matt with a copy of the Fax, and asked the 15 year worker there what had happened.   Not Knowing Matt called the Chief of Police at Caseyville, J.D. Roth who then tried as hard as he could to do the right thing.  He first suspended Steve Epps without pay, then  J.D. Roth opened an investigation, interviewed the girl, and Matt Kohnen, and Steve Epps.

Epps said in an interview he was just doing his job by sending the fax about the reckless driving.

Matt Kohnen:

Kohnen told Roth he was in Swansea at a woman's house -- a woman who previously had a relationship with Epps, the report stated. Roth later checked and found his department received no reckless driving complaints.

And the unnamed girlfriend:

The woman told Roth that Epps had "done things like this in the past" and she didn't doubt that he had sent the fax to Munie, according to Roth's summary of his interview with the woman.

So now you have 3 statements, the Chief sent the reports to the Illinois State Police... something something internal affairs something.. (Public Integrity Unit.) and they pushed it to local state's attorney Robert Haida, who then REFUSED TO CHARGE EPPS.

 

A warrant was requested for Steve Epps phone records to attempt to prove where he was all night, that request was denied by Assistant State's Attorney Beth Nester.  

 

After the prosecutor refused to charge Epps, the ISP closed the case... then Epps sued the village over his suspension... and guess what!?

 

Epps, who worked for Caseyville for 10 years, returned to work in May after engaging in arbitration with the village.

8 out of the 10 village police in Caseyville petitioned for the Chief's ouster... I think it's time some of those people started culling that herd.

Thanks to all their training...

Is law enforcement a necessity? That depends where you live. The purpose of law enforcement is to make you free. You can leave your land without the fear of a break-in, because police are out there watching.  Walk to the store feeling safe, because police are keeping dangerous people off the street. They don't do that... unless you consider pot-heads dangerous people.

Thanks to all their training, people like Deputy David Bowers, Lonnie Lawler, and their boss have given us horrors like this:

Bowers allegedly pushed one boy toward his bed and repeatedly shocked him with a stun gun. Bowers then held down a second boy, stunned him several times and threatened to sodomize him, ultimately causing the child to soil himself, the lawsuit claimed.


A third child complied with the deputies' demands that he sit on a couch, but Lawler handcuffed him before Bowers zapped him repeatedly, the lawsuit said.


The fourth child, a girl, pleaded with the deputies to stop but Lawler handcuffed her. Bowers lifted her off the ground, pressed her against a wall and choked her, the lawsuit alleged.


"Do you want to live or die (expletive)?" the lawsuit claimed Bowers asked the girl before she was thrown into a closet, vomiting.

The saddest thing about this incident are these two things:

No criminal charges were ever filed.

And

Bowers and fellow deputy Lonnie Lawler still work for the department

Remember what I said about normal citizens not being as good as them? Think about it real long, and real hard when you imagine what one of them would have done to you if they caught you in the act of doing this. Then think long and hard about what a judge and jury would do to you after that... if you were still alive. What would the chances that you'd EVER be able to go to work again?

When police come to your house in Illinois, you have to revere them, or cower in fear of their swift smiting.. If there were a REAL castle doctrine in Illinois, we would legitimately lose hundreds of cops overnight... beginning to question why there's not one?

Face it: Cops are better than you are

This news story is a couple months old, but bear with me for the relevance.  

Prosecutors said Killackey hailed a cab about 1 a.m. on April 23, 2009, outside a bar on the Near North Side.

Clermont testified that Killackey fell asleep, so when he reached his destination, the driver tapped on the cab partition. Killackey woke up, exited the car and began to walk away, Clermont said.

Clermont said he told Killackey that he forgot to pay the $8 fare but Killackey didn't stop.

"No, I didn't forget," Clermont said Killackey told him. "I don't owe you (expletive)."

Clermont then did a U-turn to block Clermont's path and asked him again to pay the fare. Killackey pulled a gun out and pointed it at Clermont, the cabbie testified. "You choose," Clermont quoted Killackey as saying to him. "Either I don't owe you (expletive) or you get out of the car and see what happens."

Clermont said he called 911. Police found a gun and his police badge in Killackey's pockets.

What was the terrible sentence for this man robbing a cab driver, threatening a man with a gun, and posessing a firearm on the street while drunk? That's right, he was charged with misdemeanor theft and assault, and given 60 hours of community service, His gun was returned to him the same night of the incident, and HE STILL HAS HIS JOB!!!...

He has also been relieved of police powers and an internal investigation is under way, said Chicago Police News Affairs Lt. Maureen Biggane. Killackey has been put in an administrative role, she said.

Let me tell you what would have happened to you or me in this situation:
you would have been held on a bond so high, no one could afford to get you out, so you would immediately LOSE YOUR JOB.
The court would KEEP your gun as evidence, then they'd trust someone like Killackey to properly "destroy" it.. or sell it to a child on the street, whichever is easier I suppose; Keep in mind there's no publicly available records of gun destructions.

Your charges would be:
2 counts of "Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon" Class 3, and Class 1 felony
1 count of "Armed Violence" Class X felony
1 count of "Theft" Class A misdemeanor
1 count "Aggravated Assault" (with use of a firearm) Class 4 Felony

If you were found guilty as officer Killackey was, your sentence would be: a minimum of 6 years, up to a maximum of 30 years in prison:
up to $25,000 in fines.
The loss of your right to own a firearm (not that YOU ever had it here in the first place)
And of course, the inability to ever get a decent job again.

The system is unfairly biased towards police, and this simply proves that the court system is also a part of that ring of corruption and thuggery. In a funny twist, the Suntimes reported that the officer actually commented that he thought that his 60 hours of community service, and 18 months of supervision was too harsh of a sentence. They have removed that article. I would normally file this under the "blue Wall of Silence" but since a judge and court was involved, the corruption goes much, much deeper.

Illinois State Police shrug at 1 mile over myth

ISP State Trooper Michael Link shrugs at the thought of where people got the idea that the ISP would be issuing tickets from photo enforced construction zones for only 1 mile over the limit.   The already low 55mph speed limit in Illinois is reduced to 45mph on highways because of the danger to workers.   The fine also increases from the standard $125, to $375.   Just so Michael Link knows, the "myth" came from an Illinois Department of Transportation press release back in March of 2005.

The press release has been removed from the DOT webpage (presumably because it makes them look bad), and is only available from web archives.

Troopers assigned to work zone details will take a zero tolerance approach when issuing citations to speed limit violators. The message is clear -- Slow down; we're serious about workzone safety."

There ya go Michael Link, this is where the "Myth" came from, an unprofessional, IDOT press release. Zero tolerance to almost everyone in the world means, 1 mile over the limit, because a limit is defined as a maximum.  That's not really important anymore, as Michael Link attempts to soothe and calm the people with this statement:

There is, in fact, a specific number of miles over the posted construction-zone speed limit that will trigger a ticket, but "I can assure you it's not just 1 mile over the speed limit," says Trooper Michael Link

Keep in mind that the Illinois State Police are still enforcing construction zone limits, when there are no workers that will be in those construction zones.

Work has ground to a halt on most Lake County road projects as a major construction strike entered its second week.

The fact that Michael Link admits to currently enforcing construction zone fines is an admission of corruption within the department as a whole, and a conspiracy of corruption with the State.

I know the state of Illinois displays corruption at a level far beyond this... but they ADMITTED to this one, so they are attempting to extort money from the people, and they are blatant about it.

Daley Actively Decieves to Gain Support

After the Supreme court ruling yesterday Daley started his soapboxing with the normal humor that you'd expect from a deviously intelligent man that hides behind the persona of a complete nimrod. His antics are supposed to be funny, and distract you from the real issues. Here's an example:

Daley said yesterday, "We are a country of laws not a nation of guns", however it was the supreme law of the land that told him that we ARE a nation of laws, and the law said you can't deny people guns! He implies, with skills that could only be obtained as a lawyer, that laws and guns can't be the same thing. Well in this case, they are one in the same, it is LAW that we are a nation of people with GUNS.

Control Freaks in politics and the cycle of "law"

People are often comforted when they elect an official who claims to have all the answers, and it's even better if the people don't have to do anything to receive these answers. This is where the leaders' narcissistic traits start to backfire. The elected leader now will claim it is some inanimate object that causes all the problems, and that you have to give it up. Now you are dependent on a group of people, normally a policing unit for your needs in solving the problem. In the case of murder, while being murdered you are supposed to try to run, and phone police then be in a location where they can find you to help. Some things are just easier to do yourself, if Daley banned soap, I wouldn't want to call the soap police so they could wash my ass.

What happened to our 4th amendment right?

In Illinois there is a recent standing history of the 4th amendment being chipped away.   At this point it is essentially non-existent.   I'll explain what happened, and when, the why's and the hows are beyond my analysis abilities at this point.

For years cars have been treated less like personal property, and more like state property.   Think of the 4th amendment in this context, "How would Thomas Jefferson react if a local police thug wanted to search his carriage without warrant?"  This is an argument used often by defense lawyers.  The colonial period response would be that the thug would be disallowed access to his carriage.  Now, what if the thug pulled out a weapon affixed at Mr. Jefferson, demanding entry, and that he stand down.   We know we would soon find a LOT of dead thugs.   This is a right so entwined in common sense, which is that no one has a right to your stuff, no matter what it is.   The same right that has been perverted for the last century, but many examples appear in the last 10 years.  

In Illinois v. Lidster 540 U.S. 419 (2004), the Supreme Court decision allowed what is known as focused informational checkpoints. However, discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.  Regardless of these restrictions, Lake and Cook County Sheriff's police routinely set up DUI checkpoints, which in my opinion count as crime-fighting checkpoints, and not informational.   What's worse, is the police have no right to any information without due process, so these checkpoints should be entirely useless.   I have been through a number of them personally, the sheriff's thugs ask you to get out of the car, and when you do you lock your door behind you.   They instantly get suspicious, and want to get in your car.  Even though I have nothing to hide, they have no right to rifle through my belongings, and worse, I have good reason to suspect that they don't like me already and would be willing to plant criminal material in order to "bust" me for their satisfaction.  

In Illinois v. Caballes, 125 S. Ct. 834 (2005), The defendant was stopped for speeding by an Illinois State Trooper. While the first officer temporarily held the defendant in his police car while writing a warning ticket to the driver, another officer walked his canine around the defendants car. The canine "alerted" at the trunk of the car, and the officers searched it.  They found marijuana in the trunk.
The officers were able to make this search stick using something known as a holding.   What this particular holding means is the officers did not need probably cause to use a canine as long as the detection occurred while the defendant was detained in a lawful manner.

The real beginning to the end was Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), in which a probable cause search was loosely defined as: "a flexible, common-sense standard."  Conveniently this case was heard during America's first "war on drugs": prohibition.  This means that probably cause can be redefined as almost limitless things, so long as it "sounds" like common sense to a judge or jury.

How Illinois breaks its own laws.

Have you ever read any of the Illinois Criminal Code? Most people would say no. If you did, you may find a lot of it enraging. The first thing that should glare out at you, is that almost everything that is illegal to a normal citizen of Illinois, is perfectly legal for a Law Enforcement officer. Let's use, for example 720 ILCS 5/14‑2 Illinois Eavesdropping laws. It states, that if you record anyone without all party's consent, you may be guilty of up to a class 1 Felony. A bit steep for not injuring, or taking property from anyone, right? This is the same punishment as of sexual assault, a very invasive, violent crime. One might call eavesdropping a non-violent, non-property crime which at worst should never be more than a fine. Well it gets worse. You may wonder how Chicago can be the Most Watched City if this law prevented any videotaping without all party's consent, right? Welcome to the dubious Illinois double standard applied to every single one of its laws. Pick any one out the the Illlinois Criminal Code, read it, and look for the portion that exempts law enforcement from it. In the case of Eavesdropping, there is a whole section that exempts law enforcement. It reads something like this:
(b) It is an affirmative defense to a charge brought under this Article relating to the interception of a privileged communication that the person charged:

1. was a law enforcement officer acting pursuant to an order of interception, entered pursuant to Section 108A‑1...



There are a couple caveats in there that are obviously there to protect corrupt politicians from all but Federal law enforcement's arm, but on the whole, this law essentially attacks the citizens and people of the state of Illinois. The only problem I seem to find here, is that most of the citizens of this state... like it that way?