A Tale of Three Juries: Jurors' double standard between cops & ordinary citizens in the American Police State

This is a tale of two different juries in the modern American police state. One jury, in Fullerton, California, acquitted a gang of rogue cops who took half and hour to beat a homeless schizophrenic man to a bloody and dying comatose pulp for no morally justifiable or good-law-enforcement-based reason. You can read about that case in the Wikipedia article titled "Death of Kelly Thomas", and see a video of what happened on YouTube. Some other versions of the Kelly Thomas story were, "Kelly Thomas' father fights for justice", "Kelly Thomas beating: 2 years later, ex-Fullerton police officers face trial", "Kelly Thomas trial: Officers acquitted in homeless man's death", and "Officer Acquitted in Fatal Kelly Thomas Beating Wants His Job Back; Supporters of Thomas Family Respond."

The second jury acquitted Colorado State Highway Patrol officer, Gene Lawyer of criminal charges in the shooting Jason Kemp. According to the Daily Sentinel, Lawyer was "charged with criminally negligent homicide, second-degree assault, illegal discharge of a firearm and first-degree criminal trespass, plus misdemeanor counts of prohibited use of a weapon and criminal mischief." That story can be found in the news articles titled, "Trooper, DA clash; closing arguments this afternoon," "Trooper acquitted in man’s death," "Troopers in Kemp death fired," "Kemp death spurs change in training at State Patrol," and 337 troopers trained on search, seizure after Kemp shooting," and "ACLU Wins $1 Million Settlement in Wrongful Death Suit."

The third jury convicted Kenneth Wheeler of "threatening police" when all he actually did was post some angry "they-ought-to-be-shot"-type comments against a few named Grand Junction, Colorado police officers on Facebook. One of the stories published in Grand Junction's so-called "journal of record" was titled, "Facebook threat targeted GJ police, preschool." Another was titled, "Threats land man in prison for 40 months." Other versions of the story were titled, "Kenneth Wheeler could get five years for Facebook threats after DUI bust", and "Kenneth Wheeler, schmuck, gets forty months in prison for Facebook death threats." The comment strings on these stories show an interesting polarization of the general citizenry.

As a quick aside, it is worth noting the not-so-subtle propaganda difference between the "smirking jerk" photo (on the left below) of Kenneth Wheeler the Sentinel repeatedly ran and another "normal guy" photo (on the right below) which is undoubtedly more accurately representative of how the man actually looks. Pro-conviction spin? Attempt to pollute the jury pool and convict Wheeler in the media prior to trial? You decide. In response to the Sentinel articles about Kenneth Wheeler, I discussed some of my Bill-of-Rights-related thoughts in the comment section,. but it is far more preferable to put some of those comments on a website such as this one where they can be hyperlinked to the resource materials (aka "bibliography") for interested readers' convenience and edification.

In any free society, there must necessarily be a bright inviolate line between thought/speech and action. Government1 may punish acts/deeds/behavior, but the 1st Amendment prohibits government from punishing thought/speech. In America, it is perfectly legal AS AN ABSTRACT IDEA to advocate the violent overthrow of government. See the United States Supreme Court decisions of Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) and Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). What you can’t do is conduct yourself in such a way as to constitute an immediate threat — e.g. say something like, “Let’s all meet at Osama’s house tonight at midnight and go over to Mr. Fascist2 Politician's3 house and kill him!” — or, in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, a “clear and present” danger. See Schenck v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). To understand the development and application of the “clear and present danger” doctrine, it is useful to read such cases as Goldman v. U.S. , 245 U.S. 474 (1918), Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616 (1919), Frohwerk v. U.S., 249 U.S. 204 (1919), Debs v. U.S., 249 U.S. 211 (1919), Pierce v. U.S., 252 U.S. 239 (1920), Schaefer v. U.S., 251 U.S. 466 (1920), and Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).

In my blog article titled, "Lying Gubmint Scumbaggery, Whistleblowing & Free Speech," interested persons can read for themselves the harmless political-speech-based flyer titled "Assert Your Rights!" for which poor Charles Schenck was imprisoned during the WWI era by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr and his intellectually and constitutionally fraudulent "clear and present danger" doctrine set forth in Schenck v. U.S., supra.

It is interesting to note that in his opinions in Abrams, Pierce and Schaefer, Justice Holmes seemed to somewhat regret and weaken his intellectually dishonest — in view of the self-evidently nonviolent political nature of the content of Schenck's pamphlet at issue — voice-of-tyranny "you can't cry 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" view set forth in his Schenck opinion.

Fairness demands recognition of the fact there is a huge difference between a killer cop (writer's opinion) like Manuel Ramos who, in the company of a gang of his cop buddies takes half an hour to beat and torture an unarmed mentally ill man to death and a "cowboy" cop (writer's opinion) like Gene Lawyer who shot a man during a scuffle at the suspect's front door.

Having said that, it must also be noted that virtually all cops will lie about threshhold probable cause facts. In his book, "Best Defense", Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz said they are trained to lie. In, any given situation, if they admit they didn't have probable cause to "contact" you, they have no case. They will not allow that to happen, therefore they lie. That should be easy enough for all but the most combatively illiterate "law and order" fanatics to understand. I wholeheartedly support constitutionally valid law enforcement, but I'm not going to deny logic and self-evident truth.

When you read the stories, it becomes obvious there are variances in the police versions of the stories. A flagrant example of these "changing" stories (aka "lies") is the police-state killing of retired Navy veteran Lewis Pollard. In that case, thanks to the truly remarkable "story changing" (aka "lying" — in writer's opinion) of Fruita police chief, Mark Angelo, I believe the most likely scenario is that the Fruita cops shot a fleeing man in the back under conditions which had nothing to do with constitutionally valid law enforcement. Unfortunately, Pollard's family had no experience in handling these types of situations, whereas, Kelly Thomas' father was a former Orange County deputy sheriff.


SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.

Cop Block - http://copblock.org - Twitter - Facebook

PoliceAbuse.com - Website

PoliceBrutalityLaw.com - Website

''We will not rest until every citizen understands the law and 'all defenses and objections not entered are deemed waived' is tattooed across every person's forehead!''

Pro Se University - Right to remain silent

DRUDGE HEADLINE: Feds Look at Ways to Prevent Spying -- on Spying! - AP - It seems pretty obvious government has no intention of backing off its police-state scumbaggery.

National Police Misconduct Reporting Project - Cato Institute

Stop Police Brutality - Website

Police Misconduct - California Innocence Project


1. In reality, there is no such real thing as "government". It is not a rock, a tree, a river, or even a cloud. It is mere behavior, an established social order, a dominance-based pecking order. With other animal species, it is often called "dominance hierarchy". In the case of humans, the term "social hierarchy" is more often used. As Frédéric Bastiat said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." As H.L. Mencken said, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." As General Smedley Butler has written, "War Is A Racket". In reality, "government" is merely the dominant individuals in the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting stupid-human pecking order struggle known as "politics"3. These disordered-by-definition dominant individuals merely call themselves "government" so the hoi polloi masses will view them as being intelligent enough and moral enough to follow and obey.

2. Fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control. — Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition. I would expand that definition: fascism = private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, in which “government” is used as a “business” tool by private interests. Another way of articulating the same idea is: fascism = private ownership/control of government.

John Flynn defined the word thusly: “Fascism is a system of social organization in which the political state is a dictatorship supported by a political elite and in which the economic society is an autarchial capitalism, enclosed and planned, in which the government assumes responsibility for creating adequate purchasing power through the instrumentality of national debt and in which militarism is adopted as a great economic project for creating work as well as a great romantic project in the service of the imperialist state.” [As We Go Marching, p. 161, 2nd ed.] — John T. Flynn (1882-1964) American Journalist and Author

"Fascist" = scumbag2 "businessman" who uses the police powers of government (via bribes, special-interest legislation, holding office himself, etc) to corruptly increase profits and eliminate or reduce competition for his (or her) business/es beyond what they would be in a genuinely fair and free marketplace comprised of willing sellers and willing buyers.

MANY Democrats and Republicans are fascists, especially the ones in Congress. To paraphrase Jesse Ventura in a conversation with Willie Nelson and Alex Jones (see videos below), the DEMS and GOP are like professional wrestling: they pretend to be adversaries in public. But behind closed doors, they're good buddies, hanging out with each other, making business deals and having dinner together at fancy restaurants and at each other homes and mansions, all the while using the coercion-based police powers of "government1" to enrich themselves.

Jesse Ventura,Willie Nelson,Alex Jones"The Gathering"1/2 - YouTube video

Jesse Ventura,Willie Nelson,Alex Jones"The Gathering"2/2 - YouTube video

Willie Nelson & Jesse Ventura"Ask Questions Damn It!!"1/2 - YouTube video

Willie Nelson & Jesse Ventura"Ask Questions Damn It!!"2/2 - YouTube video

There are five basic groups of people: 1) fascist "liberals" who use "government" to enrich themselves, 2) illiterate lemming "liberals" who only spout meaningless "leftist" talking points, 3) fascist "conservatives" who use "government" to enrich themselves, 4) illiterate lemming "conservatives" who only spout meaningless "right-wing" talking points, and 5) illiterate, apathetic, passive/aggressive disordered underachieving loser types who feel some sick sense of personal empowerment by trolling talk strings and spouting illiterate low-IQ drivel in an effort to distract and destroy meaningful and intellectually honest truth-seeking conversation.

"Socialist or Fascist" is an extremely useful article by Dr. Thomas Sowell bearing directly on the definition of fascism.

3. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. (The first two kings of ancient Israel, Saul and David, were murderers.) In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to the inalienable Creator-endowed rights of individual freedom and self-ownership.

4. It bears constant repetition: explaining the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals and/or ideologies. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads are in fact effective. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling "scum" what it is. Surely a huge majority of people, especially black people, would agree that any person or group who sincerely believes in slavery or pedophilia, by way of example, qualify as "scum". Point made.

Under construction . . .