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.

compelling evidence of 1st class citizens

Just released, compelling evidence that police are indeed 1st class citizens held to lower standards than the likes of Lindsay Lohan, and Paris Hilton for their crimes.    

Case and point:  A Milwuakee police officer sped after his girlfriend  in a jealous rage while drunk, and pulled a gun on the occupants.

Madrigal pointed his gun at the people inside the Explorer and said: "Open the door or I'll kill you. Open the door or I'll shoot you in the head," according to the complaint. Madrigal and the other passenger from the Charger stood on the Explorer's running boards and shouted at the people inside the vehicle while Madrigal pointed his gun at them, the complaint said.

 The conviction for this crime?  4 Misdemeanors

A jury convicted Jorge L. Madrigal, 25, of four misdemeanors: disorderly conduct, operating a firearm while intoxicated and two counts of intentionally pointing a gun at a person, online court records state.

Now this, also from Wisconsin:

A Wyocena man faces time in prison on charges that he threatened two people with a loaded gun while intoxicated.
Michael M. Dawson, 52, of Wyocena, was ordered held on $2,500 cash bail at an initial hearing Thursday in Columbia County Circuit Court.

This is what Michael Dawson was charged with:

Dawson is charged with two felony counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety with use of a dangerous weapon as domestic abuse, and with misdemeanor domestic disorderly conduct with use of a dangerous weapon and misdemeanor bail jumping.

When you punish one group of people more harshly than another, it is an infringement on the basic concept of liberty and equality.   These police officers who are apparently 1st class citizens normally get off with reduced sentences when they commit crimes, and it's just not right.   It has been said that Law Enforcement officials are held to a "higher standard" than the rest of us.   It couldn't have been put better than Injustice Everywhere's David when he wrote:

“Held to a higher standard”… in our vernacular, this term is generally understood to describe how some people are kept to stricter adherence to rules and who face greater penalties than others if that strict adherence somehow falters.

However these police are being evidenced of being held to lower standards.   In fact, most of the cases I research, the police officers keep their jobs!   Or successfully sue to get their job back.   Citizens on the other hand, miss a day of work from being arrested, and lose their jobs for good, with no way of suing to get said job back.  This inequality must stop or the results will be ever increasing tensions between citizens and 1st class citizens, which I fear will ultimately bring about more violence to members of both parties.   The solution is simple, equality now, and save the future...  If it's a Felony in your state to open carry, then police in that state should NOT open carry.   If threatening someone while drunk is a felony, it should STAY a felony regardless of your job title.   Seems pretty simple, right?

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 Ruining a record number of lives

Read this news that Illinois DUI arrests are on a record pace this year.  My favorite quote is from Capt. Jeffrey Patterson who has never stopped for 2 seconds to think about why these people are driving after having some drinks, he just dishes out the $10,000 tickets, and said:

“I don’t get it,” Patterson said. “There are ads about the penalties of drunk driving on the TV, on the radio, in newspapers, on billboards, they’re all over.”
Yet, he said, people continue to drive drunk. “I guess they think they’re not going to get caught,” Patterson said.

He doesn't get it?   It's really simple... in Illinois, people are miserable because they have few freedoms, and pay too much in property taxes, and drinking makes them feel good.   Our property taxes pay for everything except a decent public transportation system... buses, and trains run from the suburbs, into the cities, but it's near impossible to get from one suburb to another one that's only 12 miles away, without taking a 6 hour train ride into a city, and back out.  

Patterson, citizens know they might get caught, they refuse to live their lives under your boot of fear and intimidation... if you think controlling people's relaxation time is bad... you should try to come for our guns and see what happens.

As I showed before using the Illinois state police's own propaganda videos, the purpose of DUI stops in this state is not to keep other drivers safe.   You might say heavy fines, and life ruining criminal charges are appropriate for people irresponsibly using the roadway, and potentially endangering other drivers.   My response to that:  Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper for the ISP to have a preemptive phone service that potential drivers could call and state they're intoxicated and have limited options to get home, can they sleep it off in the local PD?   The answer is, yes, it would be cheap, and very likely effective... but it wouldn't make the police any money, and wouldn't accomplish their ultimate goal, of ruining the lives of every citizen in this state. They WILL find you!



This video claims in America one person is killed by a drunk driver every 32 minutes, but in Illinois, one person is arrested for drunk driving every 10 minutes!?   What am I missing when the Math doesn't add up this much?   50,000 people per year, at an average cost of $10,000 per person... that makes DUIs a $500 BILLION a year economy for lawyers, judges and cops.   DUI enforcement should be about protecting people, not ruining people.

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.

One bad Lake County deputy caught, the rest of them to go.

Before assuming that I am rabidly anti law enforcement, allow me to clarify my position. I love law enforcement, because it makes me, and everyone more free. I can leave my home without worrying about protecting my property, because law enforcement is out on patrol. I can live in comfort knowing help and assistance is a phone call away. What I get worked up over, is the different class of people my specific area has made out of law enforcement. They are no longer people, but rulers, allowed to kidnap, disarm, steal, wiretap, brandish, and of course disobey any traffic law ever written.  I no longer am comforted by their presence in my area, I am fearful of them, and the brute force they use to get almost anything they want.

Now, I don't mean any offense if you're one of the 3 deputies on the Lake County Sheriff's department that aren't doing something illegal, but chances are pretty damn close to 100% that every single one of them has broken Illinois State, and federal laws while "doing their job" and for that they get no leeway from me, look to our court system for that leeway.  Remember, if they've ever arrested anyone for UUW, or AUUW they have committed perjury by my interpretation.   We are living in a state where the Rule of Law only applies to citizens, lovingly referred to as "worms" by many in positions of perceived power. Unless, you're dumb enough to do something so blatant, in public, and in another state, it's nearly impossible to get the crime answered for.

Jack Johnson, a three-year deputy with the Lake County Sheriff's Office, has been charged with one count of false imprisonment while armed and one count of attempted second degree sexual assault while armed by the Kenosha County state's attorney's office, said Sgt. Christopher Thompson of the Lake County Sheriff's Office.

He was charged in Wisconsin, not Illinois with these crimes. Hey dumbass, keep it on this side of the border and you'd have the full protection of Lake County's wonderful Internal Affairs department.

Roadside "safety" checks

Tonight was a busy night, I rode a motorcycle 100 miles to go do some work, then 100 miles back.   It was a really nice day to ride, the sun was out in the day, the temperature was just right, and driving was uneventful.   On the way back, it was a little chilly, and I got sucked into a Roadside "safety" check in Palatine at Harper College.   Upon pulling in they asked me to get off my bike, and I complied, taking off my gloves, then helmet so I could have the dexterity to get my license from my pocket.   Handing them the license, they seemed surprised that there was a little "M" on it as they examined it for what seemed to be minutes.   They held on to it while they asked me a bunch of questions, seemingly harmless, but I know better than to assume that.  The conversation went something very similar to this:
Officer: "Where are ya' coming from tonight?"

Me: "From work, just heading home."

Officer: "Where do you work that you're driving so late?"

Me: "Sir, it's kind of late, I'd like to get home, am I free to go?"

Officer: "Not quite yet, this is a roadside safety check, we need to make sure you're wearing your seatbelt,
and you're not driving impaired."

Me: "Since it's a motorcycle and it has no seatbelt, and I am not impaired, am I free to go?"

Officer: "Why are you in such a hurry, are you hiding something?"

Me: "I would just like to get home, that's all, may I go now?"

Officer: "What's in your backpack?"

Me: "My belongings."

Officer: "What exactly is in the bag."

Me: "The exact belongings I chose to bring with me today."

Officer: "Since you're not hiding anything, you wouldn't mind if I took a look at your belongings, would you?"

Me: "I would mind very much, I do not consent to any searches."

Officer: "What are you hiding that you don't want me to look?"

Me: "I'm hiding nothing, I simply don't consent to any searches."

Officer: "Wait here, I have to get the sergeant for this."(officer leaves for 15 minutes, talks to another officer, the new officer walks over to me)

Officer 2: "I understand you're hiding something in that backpack sir!?"

Me: "I'm sorry, there seems to be a communication meltdown sir, I am hiding nothing, I simply will not consent to any searches, I apologize if this bothers you, am I free to go now?"

Officer 2: "No, you're not free to go yet!"

Me: "So I'm being detained?"

Officer 2: "No, we're just not done with the safety check."

Me: "I fail to see how anything inside my backpack could be related to my riding safety, so since I'm not being detained, am I free to go?"

Officer 2: "No, we aren't done here."

Me: "Well, I'm done here, so if I'm not being detained, we're already passed what I think is an acceptable amount of time for a Terry stop.

Officer 2: "Look, whatever you think you know, you're the reason this stop is taking longer than necessary."

Me: "Why?  What is so tantalizing about my off-limits bag of mystery?"

Officer 1: (returns with a dog) This dog is looking for drugs.

Me: "How well trained is he in sniffing out drugs?"

Officer 1: "He can sniff out even tiny amounts!"

Me: "That's really cool!  Has he found any tonight?"

Officer 1: "quite a few tonight."

Me: "Great!  So why isn't he going crazy with that scent around?"

Officer 1: "Umm..  he.. uhh...  knows those aren't illegal?"

Officer 2: "He's a remarkably trained dog"

Me: "Since we're obviously just going to be making stuff up all night, I'm going to head home, you guys have a good night, I hope your busts go really well."

Officer 1: "umm there is umm"

Officer 2: "We've completed the safety inspection, thank you for wearing a Helmet sir, I know it's optional, drive safe now."

Officer 1: Have a good night sir.


-------------End of Interactions---------------


What bothers me the most, is they are using something mysterious like dogs, and then lying about what the dog tells them.   Had I not called them out on their bluff, they would have told me something like: "The dog signaled, we have to search your bag."  The dog "signal" has never really been defined so that the public would know what it is, and the police use this fact to their advantage.   They also seem hell-bent on searching everything on everyone.  I saw a number of cars come in, and the police went through the whole car, the people didn't even resist a little.... but were quick to call out bullshit when they got cuffed.

You're losing your right to be secure in your own belongings Illinois... this is your warning!