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.

No FOID in IL? 1 year minimum sentence of prison.

Illinois passed HB5832 last week as I mentioned in a previous article.   Some people may be wondering, what's wrong with a FOID (Firearm Owner ID)?  

Well, the 2nd amendment is a constitutional right, and one could easily view the requirement of a card in order to buy, own and transport a firearm in this state to be equivalent to equal infringements of another amendment.   Where the 2nd amendment states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the 1st states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So essentially the same thing, to make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion would be unconstitutional... but what if any state passed a law requiring all Muslims to register with the state police for an MRID or Muslim Religion ID prior to practicing that religion?  After 9/11 we can certainly see how dangerous that religion could be, and the state police would certainly only be working in the best interests of Muslims anywhere to require that every 10 years Muslims pay $10 to keep practicing in their respective states.    How about a CRID (Christian Religion ID)?  Or an NRID (No religion ID) requiring a license to not practice religion... did you praise the lord today son?  If you didn't, it's a 1 year minimum sentence since you don't have your card!

See, everyone should see how ridiculous these cards are at this point in time, and be extraordinarily angry at the FOID card.   Sadly a lot of people are afraid of guns, and will continue to push for gun control... but a lot of people are afraid of Muslims, Atheists, Christians, and Jewish people too.... so let's keep our heads on straight... cards for rights is NOT good... protest the FOID!

Quinn signs more completely useless legislation

The people of this state must realize that they're paying people like Governor Quinn to inappropriately punish them...  given the lack of public outcry, I would have to say that this is not the case.   The People of Illinois must wish to be enslaved further.   On July 19th, Quinn signed into law updates to the already unconstitutional "Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon" law which makes jail time MANDATORY for first time offenders.   So what does this mean?

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that a first offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon committed with a firearm by a person 18 years of age or older where both: (1) the firearm possessed was uncased, loaded and immediately accessible at the time of the offense; and (2) the person possessing the firearm has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card is a Class 4 felony, for which the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than 3 years.

I interpret this piece of legislation to mean, if an out of stater comes through Illinois, or a citizen who refuses to allow their 2nd amendment rights to be infringed with the unconstitutional FOID card gets caught in the act of bearing arms, even if they hurt, or threatened absolutely no one, they go to jail automatically for 1 to 3 years.    This is part of Illinois' biggest issue, in this state they prosecute Victimless, damage-less, non-violent crimes.   If nobody's rights were infringed, and there was no damage, and no threat.... where's the crime?   I would suggest the citizens of Illinois explain this to their lawmakers in very short, easy to understand words.   If you're a good person, then you don't want to see citizens prosecuted for non-crimes.  

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.

The Power of One armed Citizen

One armed citizen is more often than not, the difference between attempted murder, and a tragedy.   On Father's day, in East St. Louis Illinois Ashley Oliver was gunned down by her boyfriend while she ran from car across several lanes of traffic, and banged on car windows pleading for help.   She already had been shot, and was bleeding as she begged drivers to help.   There was not a single armed citizen on the road that day due to bad Illinois laws.   The only man with a gun, was Ashley Oliver's killer, Tommie Hill.   Tommie wasn't worried about the Illinois felony level improper transportation of a firearm laws known as "Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon" nor was he concerned with "Aggravated Discharge of a Weapon" and he also wasn't concerned with the law and potential death sentence from  "Murder."  All of these high penalty laws, and Tommie Hill still caught up with his prey, and shot Ashley Oliver in the head in front of onlookers, and Oliver's 7 year old daughter.

In light of the strict punishments, had I been there, I too would have been an unarmed citizen.  If I intervened unarmed, I would have been a victim as well.   This was one of thousands of examples where seconds counted the difference between life and death, and help was only minutes away, and all it would have taken was one armed citizen.

A single variable data analysis.

The single variable explored today is the homicide rate, and compared it with the creation of significant black markets in America, then correlated some data to the re-application of the rights of the citizens to bear arms.  You may note that the murder rates climb slightly before each large event, this is likely due to strengthening local and regional support for the creation of these black markets.  

I affirm this graphic was made by me, and is free for distribution. While I'd like a link back to the blog, it is not necessary

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.

Unwelcoming predators

Many cities charge you $25-$100 to get a "city sticker" which normally allows you to access to parking somewhere on public roads, or access to a special city resource.   Many people ignore them because they only park on their own property, or at their place of work in a different city.   Some people buy them because they believe they have to, but do not affix them to their vehicle because they never plan on using the services awarded by such sticker display.

Enter the predator:

The local code enforcement thug comes down the street, wearing body armor and carrying weapons.  Carrying a weapon down the street is not legal for normal citizens, and the penalty gets increased if body armor is worn in conjunction with carrying a weapon.  We already see special protections awarded by the law to the code enforcement thug based solely upon his or her occupation.  They exercise their special rights while trespassing on private property to issue $75 citations to people who had the nerve to park their cars on their own driveways.  They walk up the driveway to check for a sticker that isn't clearly visible from the road, then issue a fine in the form of a ticket.   There are murmurs here and there that people are getting fed up with this.

Illinois defines these code enforcement thugs as having "lawful authority" so they can do whatever they please as illustrated in the trespassing law.

(720 ILCS 5/21‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 21‑3)
    Sec. 21‑3. Criminal trespass to real property.
    (a) Except as provided in subsection (a‑5), whoever:
        (1) knowingly and without lawful authority enters or
        
remains within or on a building; or
        (2) enters upon the land of another, after receiving,
        
prior to such entry, notice from the owner or occupant that such entry is forbidden; or
        (3) remains upon the land of another, after receiving
        
notice from the owner or occupant to depart; or
        (3.5) presents false documents or falsely represents
        
his or her identity orally to the owner or occupant of a building or land in order to obtain permission from the owner or occupant to enter or remain in the building or on the land;
commits a Class B misdemeanor.

So apparently every citizen of every Illinois town has to post a sign on their lawn that states "No Trespassing by Law Enforcement except in emergency" in order to keep these thugs from ticketing you on your own property.

6 inches from a Felony

Probably the most atrocious law in Illinois at this current time is 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 otherwise known as "Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon." The unique way in which this law is worded makes it clear, this one is about citizen disarmament. Let's take a look at some of the details of this piece of legislation.

(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon when he or she knowingly:

(1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except when on his or her land or in his or her abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm; or

(2) Carries or possesses on or about his or her

person, upon any public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town, except when an invitee thereon or therein, for the purpose of the display of such weapon or the lawful commerce in weapons, or except when on his or her own land or in his or her own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm



So we've found that if you carry a firearm at all, you are guilty. If we dissected the 2nd amendment of the US constitution we would find some simple language. The right to keep (to have), and bear (to have ON you) arms shall not be infringed. Apparently Illinois is allowed to legislate such infringement, possibly because Illinois politicians do not consider Illinois part of the United States since they follow so little of the constitution.

Of course Illinois politicians have to let gun owners transport their weapons to hunting grounds, or out of the state, so they have a few caveats:

(c) This Section does not apply to or affect the transportation or possession of weapons that:
(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state;
or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card.

So you need a special card, a FOID card, then you can put your M1a in a case, and transport it unloaded in your pickup truck.   Oh wait, what if you are from a neighboring state?  They don't give FOID cards to people from Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, or any other state because the system is linked with the DMV's license database.   So for example, if you are from Wisconsin, and you have a pickup truck, suddenly no matter where you put your revolver is illegal, even if it's unloaded and in a case.  The way I interpret this law, is that people from any state can take the trigger group out of their M1a and throw her up on the dashboard with a round in the chamber!  These lawmakers are BRILLIANT!  Oh, but it gets so much worse:


Here is the portion of the law that describes what is necessary to make this a crime:

(3) One of the following factors is present:
(A) the firearm possessed was uncased, loaded and immediately accessible at the time of the offense; or
(B) the firearm possessed was uncased, unloaded and the ammunition for the weapon was immediately accessible at the time of the offense; or
(C) the person possessing the firearm has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; or 

(D) the person possessing the weapon was previously adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for an act that if committed by an adult would be a felony; or 

(E) the person possessing the weapon was engaged in a misdemeanor violation of the Cannabis Control Act, in a misdemeanor violation of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, or in a misdemeanor violation of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act; or 

(F) (blank); or
(G) the person possessing the weapon had a order of protection issued against him or her within the previous 2 years; or
(H) the person possessing the weapon was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of a misdemeanor involving the use or threat of violence against the person or property of another; or
(I) the person possessing the weapon was under 21 years of age and in possession of a handgun as defined in Section 24‑3, unless the person under 21 is engaged in lawful activities under the Wildlife Code or described in subsection 24‑2(b)(1), (b)(3), or 24‑2(f).


According to this section, that person from Wisconsin with a pickup truck, is still screwed.   Their gun is in a case, and unloaded, and can't be disassembled without a lot of undue fuss, so there is no way out.



To make matters worse, Illinois has linked Marijuana possession with carrying a gun.  Because police can be trusted so fully to NEVER plant drugs to hype up charges.


Nonetheless, thousands of out of staters, and many in state residents have succumb to this legislation for some reason.   One court counselor admitted to me that big rig truck drivers are most commonly brought in on this charge, many of them have some type of weapon to protect themselves from robbery or attack while on the road, and a broke Illinois government can't help but to destroy lives, and steal money over complete nonsense.  This law is such nonsense, that they left subsection (f) blank!
  

You may think I'm overreacting about the destroying someone's life, but if you look at the punishment, it does not fit this crime.    We are talking about a victimless-crime that involves no property damage, or emotional stress that centers around a right that Americans have to keep, and bear their arms... and doing so is a felony.

(d) Sentence. Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon is a Class 4 felony;

Governor Quinn once stated that "Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon just means that you shot at someone and missed." He said this in order to get the law passed to strengthen this law from a class 4 felony, to a class 1 felony, so in January 2011 it becomes a class 1 felony. What he didn't realize, is that the law he was really talking about was "Aggravated discharge of a firearm." Leave it to an Illinois governor to not know which it is.


Of course law enforcement is exempt, as they open carry loaded pistols every day, and have rifles within reach that are loaded in their cars.

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?