Category Archives: police relations

Daunte Wright: What went wrong?

The shooting of Daunte Wright can only be described as a sad tragedy. What should had been a simple traffic stop quickly escalated into a situation that would leave one man dead and an officer facing charges. What happened on the day Daunte was shot? Here’s what we currently know.

On 04/11/2021,  Wright was pulled over for having an expired tag. During this time, officers had discovered an active warrant for Wright. For this reason, they proceeded to make an arrest. However, the situation was about to take a turn for the worst.

As officers attempted to cuff Wright, he began to resist, pulling himself out of the arms of officer Potter. She proceeded to reach for a taser, only to accidently retrieve her service weapon. With Wright in his vehicle, attempting to flee, Potter yells, “taser, taser.” This was to notify other officers, as well as Wright, that the use of a less than lethal weapon was about to commence.

Upon yelling this, Potter fires one round, fatally shooting Wright in the chest. At this point, we can hear Potter say, “Oh my God, I just shot him.” Wright’s vehicle drives for several blocks before crashing into the back of another vehicle. What went wrong? Let’s review that aspect.

What went wrong?

Things initially started out as a very standard traffic stop. However, things begin to quickly go wrong once officers begin to make an arrest. So how could things go so seriously wrong in such a short time? For this, we have to look at the actions of officer Potter.

Most departments have a standard policy regarding their tasers and service weapons. In general, the two are to be kept separated. This is to prevent exactly what happened in the Wright situation. Potter’s department’s policy was: Service weapons were to be placed on the “dominant” side of the officer. The taser was to be placed on the officer’s “weak” side. However, from the context of the video, we know that officer Potter may had been in violation of this policy.

If she had placed her taser in the location, as described by her department’s policy, Duane may had very well survived this encounter. Evidence of the potential violation comes in the fact that she had intended to reach for the taser, only to grab her pistol instead.

The other aspect of where “things went wrong,” actually began with Duane Wright. If he had not resisted, over a gross misdemeanor warrant, just as stated above, he very well could had survived this encounter. Although this is true, this does not excuse the fact that officer Potter used lethal force in a situation that did not require it.

Every department has as “use of force” policy. This policy outlines what type of force can be used as well as when it can be used. A man trying to escape is a justified reason for pulling a taser. It is not a justified reason for pulling a service weapon, even if that was done by mistake. Furthermore, officer Potter, a veteran of 20+ years, should had known better than to allow such a mistake to occur. Furthermore, she should had immediately realized that the weapon she pulled was not a taser.

There are fundamental differences between a taser and a service pistol. The weight of each weapon is different. To expand beyond that, the visual difference should had been an indicator. Tasers, as used by law enforcement, are yellow and black. The weapon Potter was holding clearly did not have this color scheme. So, what happens now?

As we all know, officer potter, and the police chief, have resigned. For Potter, the situation has taken more of a legal turn. The day after her resignation, she was arrested. Potter currently sits in the county jail, where she faces charges of negligent manslaughter. I have no doubt that she will be convicted. In this situation, the bodycam photage, speaks for itself.

Potter was careless, and had accidently discharged a weapon that she had not intended. Because of this careless act, a young man is now dead. This situation should serve as a warning, not only to the public, but to other law enforcement officers: If you’re careless, you may create a situation to which there is no return.

America’s war on itself

Recent events have done nothing more than demonstrate the problem that has been ignored for many years. While many of us have known that this day would arrive, the vast majority sat in the comfort of their own homes, completely ignorant of what was about to come. Today, we’re going to review the rapid progression on the “war” against the American people. This is a war brought fourth by corporations and our very own government.

Election fiasco

It should be obvious that the vast majority believe the election was rigged. While our platform has always been critical of Trump, we were even more critical of the idea of having “mail-in” votes. The concept of mailing in your vote simply left to many variables for things to go wrong. While I’m not willing to blatantly state that the election was rigged, I am willing to entertain the idea that it is very likely. Even with that aside, even with my criticism of Donald Trump, I believe, without doubt, that he is being completely railroaded by Nancy Pelosi and her “goons.”

In recent months, we saw the first impeachment process against Trump. Let’s face the reality about that process, it was a bogus situation with nothing less than ill intent. Of course, this wasn’t the last attempt to destroy the now former president. In recent weeks, in a highly controversial and potentially illegal move, we witnessed a second impeachment. This process was based on the grounds that Trump incited a riot at the capital. But did he? Well, the tweets that they are using say nothing about condoning a riot. In fact, the term didn’t even appear in the tweets; the fact is, we simply could not find any tweet to which President Trump encouraged a riot. But what about the riot itself?

Mainstream media has really bitten into this one. We know things were stolen from the capital. We know that people were killed during this riot. But what many people don’t know is how this group successfully bypassed heavily armed Security, law enforcement, and even Secret Service agents to get into this building. For that, you only have to search for videos, which are being spread all over the internet. What we see in these videos are the police opening barricades to allow the protestors in. Police are seen talking with the protestors, interacting with these “dangerous” thugs. What I’m saying here should be clear: they got in because the police literally opened the doors for them. Because of these videos, some people are lead to believe that this was actually a bait to justify impeachment.

The second impeachment is highly questionable, at best. While it would still have to go court, even with the votes already being cast, Trump will no longer be in office when this happens. This would make him the first President to ever be impeached after already being removed from his position. Of course, the second impeachment is also a first. Meanwhile, as a result of this, tensions are quickly reaching a boiling point. I no longer believe that the possibility of civil war, I now wonder when it will happen.

Further tension arose with the questionable removal of Trump from social media. While many people are surprised and shocked by this, they really shouldn’t be. For years, Facebook has taken a stance to shutdown independent media platforms, or anybody who spoke against their supported political figure; Twitter is known to do the same, though not as extreme as Facebook. The basic point is: they’ve been censoring people for years now, with no accountability, and it’s not going to stop just because of who the person is. For those who are absolutely outraged by this, questions regarding our constitutional rights arise. Can a company do this? Well, that’s tricky. Technically, they are private companies. However, as I’ve said many times before, a company who is on the stock market falls into the category of being “public domain.”

Rather or not they can do this doesn’t mean they won’t. As our own government continues to put the nails into the coffin of our democracy, at the expense of the American people, we can expect to see many more reactions. The capital riot is just the start of what could very well become an outright war. While the government has the ability to prevent this, I don’t believe they will. If anything, I believe this is exactly what they’ve been wanting to happen. After all, anybody who’s observant can see that this tension has been slowly boiling for many years now.

Are retailers violating the HIPAA ACT?

With the COVID situation running rampant, it shouldn’t be a surprise that your medical information is now being forced to be presented to employers. Failing to do so is met with consequences, loss of employment, or even suspension without pay. However, some employers, such as Dollar Tree, have taken this a step further. They not only ask for your medical information, they are accused of asking for information pertaining to related to the employee. With this accusation, a member of our team applied, got the job, and tested this theory out. This article is going to present information provided to us by a former employee and the results of what we learned first hand.

HIPAA

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) Act was designed in 1996 with the purpose of protecting sensitive medical information. With this act, doctors are forbidden from divulging information of any patient without having prior written consent. However, the act expands beyond that aspect. With the HIPAA Act, patients have control of their medical information, they can choose who to provide this information to, and it limits what medical information an employer can obtain; this last portion is where our article is primarily focused.

While this act doesn’t necessarily pertain to employers, there are aspects of it that do. For instance, under the HIPPA Act, an employee is not required to divulge their medical files, or even diagnosis and treatment. While we are currently in a pandemic, this changes nothing as the HIPPA Act simply does not address situations such as this. An employer asking an employee the results of a Covid test could be taken as a violation as, once again, a patient is not required to give the employee their diagnosis or treatment information. This brings us to the retail industry, who seem to ask their employees for this very piece of vital information.

Retails intrusive questions

With the information we had obtained from a source, our platform decided to go “inside” and find out for ourselves. For this, a member of our team applied at a local “Dollar Tree.” This location was selected because it was the company that we had gotten the complaint about. Like magic, the application was approved and we had our feet in the door. At this point, the investigation commenced.

The first night was uneventful. No questions were asked, just the typical “pre-opening” work. Shelves were stocked, boxes were stored, that sort of thing. Our new insider had begun to question rather or not the accusations were, in fact, even true. After working for hours, we had initially thought the investigation was a fluke. This conclusion didn’t last long, however. Prior to the insider’s employment, we had already established that if they did ask any of the questions, they were to answer at least one of them with “yes.”

The reason behind this was simply to see what the store would do in this situation. We already had established that answering “no” gave you the “right” to work, we wanted the other end of the spectrum. On night two, our insider reports that they arrived at the store. Upon entering, they were immediately stopped and asked some questions. Because this was being recorded, we are providing the very questions that were asked. We are also providing the response given by our insider.

The questions

Q: Have you been around anybody who has tested positive for Covid?

A: If I had been, there is no way that I could possibly know, so I’m going to say no. It is important to note that the employer is marked with (Q) while our insider is marked with (A.)

Q: In the past 24 hours, have you been around anybody who has been tested for Covid?

A: Yes.

Q: Wait, you’ve been around somebody who got tested for Covid?

A: Yeah.

Q: Do you know the results of their tests? (Highlighted as this question potentially violates HIPPA.)

A: No, I don’t know their tests results. Why?

Q: Because that means you can’t come into work.

A: What do you mean I can’t come to work, why not?

Q: Because you’re putting the entire store at risk.

A: Uh, okay, that makes no sense but whatever.

It’s important to note a few things within these questions. The first is the redundancy of the first question. If this had not been our insider, but another employee, they would already be at a high risk of exposure, they’re working retail. The second thing to note is what HIPAA says about asking for test results: they aren’t permitted to know what a diagnosis or treatment is. If the test were to be a positive, the employer is not permitted to know this as the patient would be diagnosed with Covid. Branching beyond that, the employer is also not permitted to know what the treatment plan for the said diagnosis is. Essentially, asking this question is a legal situation in the making. With a good attorney, this company could face a rather hefty penalty.

While all of the questions are intrusive, the specific question asking for test results, especially regarding those not employed with the company, is the smoking gun for any “litigation-happy” disgruntled employee. Expanding beyond the questions, we are left with one unanswered question: why the inconsistency?  On the first night of employment, our insider received no questions prior to their shift. However, on the second night, they were questioned. If the employers policy regarding “safety” was so serious, wouldn’t they be asking these intrusive questions prior to every shift?

While this subject, especially now, remains highly controversial, it is one that should be discussed. The question asking, “how far is to far?” is simply not asked enough. In this year alone, we have seen some of the worst violations to our rights than at any point in America’s history. Our right to religious freedom being a primary example. During this time, we saw ministers being arrested simply for refusing to cease with the practice of their religious freedoms, in the way that their religions required. But the violations didn’t start, nor did they end, there. For now, we will simply ask this one question: Will Americans ever say “enough is enough?”

 

Editorial Statement

Due to the backlash on Twitter, we are clarifying that this article is purely opinion. We are asking a question, noted by the title, and are simply responding with our thoughts. While the companies may not be violating HIPAA, by requesting information of people, who are not employed with them, we can at least establish that the privacy of those individuals have been violated.

Another Facebook purge?

This article is very different from anything we’ve written in the past. While our normal policy is to not write anything to which we are directly related, we have been forced to make an exception. Over the past month, I have uploaded three YouTube videos. The videos not only explain the apparent attack on the “War on Corruption” platform, it goes to detail the progressive censorship of my own account. Though I had hoped for a resolution, Facebook has adamantly refused to address any message I’ve sent to them. In fact, they’ve only increased the various forms of censorship to my account and my platform.

Censorship: Phase I

In the beginning, what Facebook had done was nothing more than a slight annoyance. With no explanation, not even a noted policy violation, I had found that my account had been blocked from commenting or replying to political pages. This means that I could not interact with any political figure, this immediately caught my attention. At this point and time, I was still able to comment, reply, and even post to other pages, groups, etc. At this time, I was oblivious to just how far Facebook would take this censorship.

Censorship: Phase II

After about a week of dealing with the original block, Facebook apparently decided that it was time to do additional blocks. Upon trying to post a comment to a group, which I had been able to do the previous day, I found that I had been restricted from doing so. As with the original block, no reason was given explaining why my account had been restricted. The censorship wouldn’t end here. If it did, this article wouldn’t exist. Within twenty-four hours of this new restriction, I was restricted from commenting and replying to all pages and groups. However, at this point and time, I was still able to post on the “WoC” page, though commenting and replying had now been restricted.

Censorship: Phase III

For the next few weeks, I progressively became agitated over the restriction. On top of running this media platform, I compose and sell music online. At this point and time, this had remained untouched by the nefarious goons of Facebook. However, War on Corruption had now been completely restricted from me. I could no longer post, comment, reply, or even send private messages from the platform’s page. It was, at this point that we decided to begin the process of removing WoC from Facebook completely. During this period, Facebook added yet another new restriction. Not only was I unable to post, comment, reply, or send PM’s, I now could no longer join or leave groups. Worst yet, Facebook wasn’t even finished playing this illegal form of censorship.

Censorship: Phase IV

With this, we are now up to date with the current situation. At this point, Facebook has removed my ability to post, comment, and reply from my personal profile. Furthermore, the page I have, to which I promote my side gig of music, has also been slammed by the social media giant. This means that, on two different platforms, Facebook has not only censored me, but they’ve even cut a form of my income: music. But it doesn’t end there. Out of our team of seven, five of us have been targeted in this exact same manner, all without reason or explanation. Though all of us have tried to appeal it, the results are the same. The appeal process itself has been restricted from all of us.

This means that while we have the option to appeal, should we attempt to do so it will fail to go through; Facebook will never even know that we’ve tried to fight it. As of now, our platform is being operated by two individuals of our team, the only two who have not been targeted with this illegal act. Meanwhile, I continue my search for a civil rights attorney. Not only for our team, but for the various other platforms, and individuals, targeted by Facebook.

Conclusion

With much discussion, we do have a lead into what instigated the censorship: I was critical of a specific political figure, one that Facebook supports. With their censorship, they’ve not only shown how far they will go to stop anybody who opposes their political views, they have demonstrated how far they will go to silence any journalist who speaks against those to which they support.

We aren’t writing this article to bring awareness to what is happening to our platform, we are writing this to warn other journalists, and truth seekers, of what Facebook is willing to do to silence them. We have full expectation that Facebook will shut us down. Since the time of the initial restriction, we have watched as our platform stats spiraled into oblivion. With this, we have absolutely no doubt that, much like our team, our platform is being shadow banned by the site.

During what many call the “purge,” Facebook wiped out over a dozen media platforms from their site. Among them: “Freedom Though Project,” who had well over a million followers. The habitual pattern of Facebook is to target independent media, why not? They can’t buy us off unlike the corporate giants of the media world. While Facebook continues to hold its position of being a “private” company, this is factually untrue. Facebook had ceased being a private company when they entered the public domain, the Stock Market. While this has many financial benefits for the site, it has a lot of legal disadvantages. Among them, violating constitutional rights.

Though we have no expectation of the platform surviving this, on Facebook at least, we have begun moving to other sites. Below, are links to our new locations. We hope to see you there just as we hope that Facebook will cease this unjust activity.

MeWe

Rumble

Flote

Minds

Parler

 

Evading accountability: The report

In law enforcement, report writing is essential. Not only does it provide information involving various situations, it also works as a legal document, which can be used within the court system. On the dark side of things, this simple report can actually work in getting an officer out of trouble. Though it sounds farfetched, it’s not. Today, I am going to reveal to everybody how that can work. This isn’t coming from researched information. instead, this is coming from first hand information resulting from my time working within the system.

When writing a report, especially in instances to which use of force is used, the way the report is written can help or hurt that officer. This fact is so important that departments devote an entire training course on how reports are to be written. Included within that training is how to avoid having that report come back on the officer. The best way to explain this is to simply provide you a scenario.

In this example, we have a victim who has been body slammed by an officer. The victim was compliant and unarmed. Now, if the officer was being honest, the report would read something like this:

On (date) I intercepted (Victim’s name,) regarding complaints of (situation.) The individual was complying to orders when officer (name) proceeded to use less than lethal force. In this force, the individual was slammed to the ground, at which time they were cuffed.

Now, the way the above report is written, will vary depending on the officer. However, this version of events isn’t what people generally see. As you can imagine, the above would place fault for any injuries onto the department, as well as the officer. This is why the police are trained on how to word their reports. For this reason, you will never see the above report. However, what you will see is this:

On (date) I intercepted (Victim’s name,) regarding complaints of (situation.) The individual wasn’t complying  to orders. at this point, officer (name) proceeded to assist (name) to the ground and cuffed.

Notice the wording. In a report, rather than stating that the individual was “body-slammed,” the police will simply state that they “assisted” a person to the ground. This may not sound like a big deal but in the courts, that could mean the difference between doing your job and being charged with assault. Should the victim sue the department, this report would again be used to protect the officers involved.

This tactic is used in virtually every encounter that involves police. It doesn’t just include them, however. Every division of law enforcement, including the correctional system, utilize this method of report writing. In situations where an officer does make a report implicating abuse from other officers, another system of misinformation is utilized. The “Blue Brotherhood,” which we will be writing about in the near future, cannot be violated without consequence. An officer who writes a report, placing fault on a department or another officer, is faced with two separate situations.

To begin with, the officer will not be able to submit their report. When attempting to do so, the department will simply refuse to accept it until they modify it. Once the report has been altered, using the “appropriate” words, it can then be submitted. However, this doesn’t change the fact that this officer had violated the blue code. From this point forward, they face a real possibility of being targeted by not only other officers, but by those in charge.

The departments are about covering themselves, even if that means covering up their tracks. Because investigations are conducted by “internal affairs,” the methods used for writing these reports are never questioned. As a result, there is no accountability. Furthermore, officers who generally violate policy, or even the law, face no consequences for doing so. For this, and many other reasons, the way to which these reports are written do matter. As I said, it can come back to haunt the officer if done incorrectly.

Shoot first, ask later: Linden Cameron shooting review

You have most likely heard of the Linden Cameron situation. Cameron is a 13-yo child, living in Salt Lake City, UT., who was, back in September, shot by “highly” trained officers. This is an article that we had been sitting on for sometime now. While we enjoy critiquing law enforcement, we had decided that it was better to wait for any new details to emerge. With that said, let’s begin.

September 4, 2020

On the night of September 4th, police had received an urgent call. Golda Barton, Linden’s mother, had stated that her son was having a psychiatric episode and could become violent. She also allegedly requested a crisis intervention officer. It is important to note that her son, Linden, suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism. While the condition is manageable, it does come with a variety of complications. Social skills, behavioral skills, etc. being among them.  On this night, it was reported that Barton’s son had made threats of breaking windows as well as threatening to shoot an employee. While this would put police on high alert, we have to remind you that they had a crisis intervention officer, the “specially” trained officer who deals with citizens suffering from mental disabilities.

While the SLC police have never verified the recovery of a weapon, they have released a statement. According to Sgt. Harrocks they were advised of a child who was having a “violent psych issue” and “making threats to some folks with a weapon.” However, the mother counters this claim. According to her, she informed police that night that he had no weapon, they shot him anyway. This brings us to ask the big question: were the police justified in shooting a 13yo child?

Shooting review

As you are probably aware, there is a specific criteria when it comes to the use of lethal force, especially when that force is lethal. For instance, the police have to articulate that there is a creditable threat to their lives, something I highly doubt would have been the case in this situation. While the child did have previous involvement with the police, this can’t be used to articulate that there is a threat to life. The bigger issue with this shooting is simply how it unfolded.

Watching the bodycam video, an officer is seen running up to the child while yelling “hold your hands out.” within a fraction of  a second, multiple shots are heard. The second problem with this situation comes in the multiple options that the officers had. They could had tackled, used a taser, or simply spoke to the child. The last example brings us right into problem number three.

You may recall, early in the article, I mentioned two things: the child has Asperger’s and the mother called for a crisis intervention officer. Generally, a crisis intervention officer is trained to deal with people such as this, so why didn’t they do their job? When dealing with a child, unless there is a weapon clearly visible, there is absolutely no excuse for shooting a weapon. But, even with all of these issues, we still have that burning question to answer.

The simple reason for the shooting was simply because the child wouldn’t obey commands. This shooting shows the horrible lack of training, competency, and integrity of the American police force. Because this child did not obey command, the police felt that it was required to blast eleven shots at the boy, in a neighborhood setting, in the darkness of night. This goes into other problems, such as the safety of residents. The one thing we can all agree to is this, every bullet fired has to stop somewhere. With each bullet these officers had fired, they not only placed the life of mentally disabled child at risk, but the lives of all the residents living nearby.

Conclusion

What should had been a call for help ended up becoming a horrific situation. A child, who was in clear need of help, is forever traumatized, alongside his family. This child, who already did not trust the police, has now been validated as to why he shouldn’t. As a result of this shooting, it’s reported by family that he has lost feeling in his left hand. Because he was shot in both of his feet, he will never be able to do many of the things he once could.

We can conclude that if this is how SLCPD’s “crisis intervention” officer handles these situations, we can only hope that they are unemployed once the investigation concludes. Beyond that, this situation demonstrated the willingness of officers to shoot first rather than actually handling the situation. Ultimately, it also is a demonstration of just how little the police regard human life. While this isn’t true among all officers, it doesn’t change that this lack of compassion is a pandemic within law enforcement.

 

The police mentality

We continue our journey into exposing the legal system and its various forms of corruption. So far, we have exposed an incompetent police department and its chief, how law enforcement evades accountability with report writing, and how being innocent of a crime still means guilt. With these things being exposed, it is now time that we expose the mentality of the police. If you believe this mentality is disturbing in public, behind the scenes will be even more shocking. While our platform, and specific members of our team, have been targeted because of these articles, it only furthers our reasons for writing them in the first place. In this article we are not only going to be talking about law enforcement but also revisiting the Department of Corrections.

 

Bully Pride

This is the most recorded aspect of law enforcement, next to what appears to be the random shooting of civilians. We see it all the time, a power tripping cop going on a warpath. We have also seen how these events generally end. However, while this is what when they interact with the public, we don’t see what happens behind closed doors.

You wouldn’t think that other officers would be a target of such behavior; you would be wrong. Law enforcement, though they deny it, has what is called the “Blue Brotherhood.” Granted, this sounds like something from a mafia movie, but there is a good reason for that. In law enforcement, there are two types of officers: those who are “in” the brotherhood and those who aren’t. When it comes to this, you don’t want to be that guy who isn’t in it. Officers who find themselves in the “out,” find that their jobs become extremely difficult. They find themselves targets of other officers, supervisors, and even those within upper management. Basically, those who are not in the brotherhood, or violate it’s “code,” have no means of help from within the agency.

This mentality doesn’t just apply to the police, it also applies to the Department of Corrections, a harsh reality that was verified by our lead journalist, who once worked for this very system. Officers who are targeted find themselves alone and isolated within the very place they work. Harassment and bullying becomes extreme, until they finally give in and simply resign. Among the things that may happen to a targeted officer include: pay being withheld, false internal investigations from superiors, fabricated write-ups, and the list goes on. The ultimate goal is to push the officer into resigning. Though it would be easier to terminate that officer, termination means they could file unemployment while resigning makes that nearly impossible. Even if the officer resigns, the harassment doesn’t end there.

Once the officer resigns, they are immediately “blacklisted.” Blacklisting, to put it into simple terms, is a malicious method of ensuring that the former officer cannot obtain another law enforcement job. They are often put into a computer system, marked with “do not hire.” Should another agency contact the former place of employment, all they have to say is that he/she is not hirable, the blue brotherhood does the rest.

Bullying isn’t just subjected to the few good officers we have in this country. Inmates, who find themselves living within the prison systems, also become targets. While these individuals are in the prisons for a reason, it does not condone how they are treated by the officers working the facility. Within the Department of Corrections, there is a universal mentality: “we will take the word of an officer over an inmate.” This mentality immediately puts the inmate at a complete disadvantage. If the inmate is being targeted by an officer, files a complaint to which that officer denies the accusation, it becomes a case closed situation. No further investigation, nothing more is done.

Behind the scenes, officers have been known to joke, laugh, and even mock inmates, or those arrested. In one situation, our lead journalist had witnessed a conversation to which an officer laughed about body slamming a woman to the ground. Though the woman had to be taken to a medical ward for her injuries, that apparently only made the situation funnier for this officer. What’s worst about this? To this day, that officer remains employed with D.O.C.

Complete control

If you’ve ever looked at a Facebook profile belonging to an officer, you may notice how bland it is. There generally is a serious lack of information. Furthermore, they are cautious as to what they post. There is a reason for this. It’s not because the officer is in fear, though the department uses a fear tactic against them. The reason for this is because of the amount of control the departments have within the personal lives of its officers. All law enforcement agencies, including D.O.C. have policies that tell the officer what is allowed to be posted, what is forbidden, and what can get them fired. For instance, if the officer slams another department, or their own, that is grounds for punishment. Not only will the department force that officer, generally under duress, to remove the post, they could face further consequences. Demotion, pay withheld, write-ups are just a few examples of what that officer could face.

Law enforcement agencies control the behaviors of their officers with fear, intimidation, and various threats. On the flip side to this, officers within D.O.C do the same to the inmates, who are unlucky enough to find themselves within their facilities. On both ends of this spectrum, retaliation is a very real possibility. Those who dare to speak out, rather it be an officer or an inmate, often find themselves being made examples of. For the officers, the consequences could mean the loss of pay, targeted harassment from other officers, termination (or the threat of it,) and so fourth. For inmates, it’s almost the same aside the termination. For them, the possibility of being thrown into a segregation (SHU, Isolation, “The hole,” etc.,) is more than enough motive to keep them silent and obedient. While we often criticize every officer who works within these departments, most people are completely oblivious to what the “good cops” have to endure. We often wonder why they remain silent, why they rarely take action, and why they do nothing to make change. Unfortunately, this is the reason behind that.

Police department exposed

update

The Chief of police reached out to us, though she didn’t exactly answer our question. Below is that correspondence.

Chief: What are your questions about our policies?

WoC: Our platform was recently informed that your department rejected a potential application, partly on the grounds of an accusation to which an individual was found innocent. We know this because we were able to pull up this disposition. Though the individual involved has declined to comment on this, I thought I would touch base with you guys and find out how that was able to be used against this person, regardless of this disposition?

Chief: The individual you are talking about KNOWS why he was turned down. You have to tell the truth. I will be glad to talk to you I person. I will be in the office Monday.

At this point, the conversation was abruptly ended, she has not responded since this message.

—————————————

It was inevitable that this article would be written. In our current trend of exposing the “justice” system for all the glamorous corruption, it shouldn’t be to hard to conceive that we would begin targeting specific law enforcement agencies. Today, we are going after a small Oklahoma town, Earlsboro Police Department. This department was brought to our attention by a former applicant, denied a job on the basis of a charge, to which they were determined innocent. Upon conducting my own research into this department, it’s not all that surprising that they would had denied the individual’s application upon those grounds. After all, in 2018, the department was so corrupt it had gained state wide attention. Let’s review the Earlsboro Police Department.

History of abuse and corruption

As we have stated, this small town department is riddled with a past of corruption. In 2015, officer Michael Young, who is believed to still be with the department, targeted a freelance journalist. The journalist, associated with the organization “Cop Block,” had been filming the officer’s interaction with another citizen. To see that video, just click this link.  The situation, based upon the video, is rather disturbing.

It shows officer Young parked in front of a residence, lights enabled. Upon leaving, he does a U-turn. When getting to the corner, where the journalist is located, he stops at the stop sign. However, he doesn’t simply drive away. Instead, Young sits at this sign, blocking potential traffic. This goes on for several minutes.  Finally, after blocking the road for several minutes, officer Young decides to engage the journalist. The fact that the officer chose to even engage somebody, filming on a public road, is already questionable. But as we’ve said, this department doesn’t exactly operate with the legal scope.

More controversy hit the department in 2018. The former chief of police, Troy Magers found himself the centerfold of this event. Though this controversy was aimed at the private life of Magers, it spoke loudly for his character. So, we are going to give a quick rundown of the situation.

The former chief had rented a house. Upon leaving the residence, the home owner found it to be a complete wreck. Trash, feces, urine, roaches littered the home, it looked as if a hoarder had been living there. Though there is much debate as to why he was removed, one allegation is it was over sexual harassment claims and abuse of power. Though we haven’t been able to confirm the reasons leading up to his removal, we did find that he has an extensive history of misdemeanors and civil litigations dating back to the 1990’s. This leads us to our current question: If the EPD allowed this man to apart of the department, why did their current Chief of Police, Candie, deny a man who was found to be innocent of his charge?

Allegations against the former Chief of police didn’t just stop at how he destroyed a rental home. We were able to make contact with a man who had lived in the town during this time. According to this contact, the former chief had made a point of targeting a young woman and her children. In fact, the harassment had become so severe that she had allegedly bought a gun to protect her family from the police. Ultimately, after the officer attempted to remove her children, she and her family, was forced to move from their home.

We reached out to the department, in attempt to get answers. However, what we found was that any comment we left was  hastily removed. To ensure our question was seen, and hopefully answered, we left it for them on a Google review (pictured below.) One thing we noticed when looking at their reviews, was their rating. 2.6 out of 5. While it’s not uncommon to see lower scores with any law enforcement agency, this is still remarkably low. Reviews accuse officers of theft  to inaction in a potential life threatening situation.

Because they continue to delete any questions asked by the WoC team, we made our questions in a very public way. Doing it like this also ensures that the department cannot delete it.
The record showing the background of the EPD former police Chief, Troy Magers.

We find it interesting that a man with such a record of misdemeanors and civil suits was qualified to be a chief, but a man who was innocent wasn’t qualified to join the department.  While the department has allegedly pulled the “legalities” card, when we review the history of their previous chief, that is something we find to be rather suspicious. While the department has now become more active within its local community, it doesn’t necessarily excuse it from its past. When policies are being created on the spot, when officers, who still remain with the department, hold a history of abuse and intimidation,  we have more than enough reason to believe that nothing has truly changed.

It is unfathomable to believe that such a small department could be more corrupt than those in bigger cities. While we don’t believe the corruption has stopped, simply changed hands, it does appear that the department has made some drastic changes. While we still can’t confirm officer Young’s employment with this specific agency, we are told by a source that he maybe working for another department.  Allegedly the entire department was wiped clean, alongside Chief Magers. According to sources, this was brought about from accusations of “sexual misconduct.” However, neither the city of Earlsboro, nor it’s police department, will confirm this. One thing that is clear is they are still enforcing a non-existent law. There is no law barring a person employment purely based upon an accusation. After all, accusations happen all the time, it’s the establishment of guilt that matters. Because our journalist does live within the same state as this department, they can rest assure that we are going to be watching them very closely in the days to come.

Always guilty

“The system is broken.” At some point you have probably heard this expression. What if I were to tell you that this statement is wrong? The very system that you believe to be broken, in fact, was maliciously designed so that no matter what, you pay for the crime. If it sounds completely insane, it’s not. For many people, wrongfully strung into the court system, this is the reality that they face, regardless of disposition.

For those who haven’t been through this auction for your freedom, the idea you have is probably along these lines: you are charged, you go to court. If you are found guilty, you do your time, and you’re free. Alternatively, you are found innocent and that’s simply the end of it. Well, that’s not entirely true, just ask any innocent person who has been charged with a crime. Regardless of the fact that they were found “innocent” of the charge, the reality for them is this: they still pay for that crime.

What many of these people harshly learn is that companies, government agencies, and so fourth, still hold that charge against them. Is this legal? Not really, but they still do it.  For these individuals, the concept of “innocent” simply does not exist. The embarrassment of being dragged into a courtroom, the loss of income, and people knowing what you were accused of but not accepting the disposition makes the words, “innocent until proven guilty” a lost luxury.

However, there is a way to obtain that luxury again, at least that’s the glimmer of light. The downside to it is in that it is going to cost you hundreds of dollars to do so. So, let’s break this court system down. For this breakdown, I’m going to presume innocence. You are charged with a crime. You are dragged to a courtroom for months, or even years on end. Finally, you get the verdict “innocent.” You think the humiliation is over, it’s not. Now, you have this charge on your background, still very publicly visible to those who look.

While it should be the responsibility of the court to remove this, when you were found innocent, they won’t. You have to spend money to bribe these political parasites into doing that. Without the bribe, your life spins into chaos. Every job you apply for, sees this charge. Although they see the disposition of that charge, it generally doesn’t matter. You’re denied jobs regardless. Meanwhile, these law enforcement agencies, judges, and various other parasitic leeches are banking off of this flawed system, all of it at your expense.

Once you pay the bribe, you get the expungement. However, that could take months to go through; it could also mean more court dates. The worst aspect to all of this is in the fact that the damage has already been done. While you’re left to deal with the broken pieces of your life, the cash cow within the (in)justice system continues it’s illusion that it is “for the people” rather than against them.

 

 

Shawnee apartment complex drive-by.

We would like to believe that the safest place to be is at our home. However, those living at an apartment complex in Shawnee, OK., learned just how quickly that safety can be violated.  While this is just a preliminary article, using statements from various witnesses, we are going to post what our platform currently knows. While we have reached out to the police department, they were quick to make it clear that they cannot give out any information. Although this is standard procedure, they did confirm that nobody was harmed in this event.

Preliminary report

October 9, 2020 was like any other day. One witness, and her friend, had their children outside playing.  Both parents were outdoors to monitor them. From what we know, two cars, one white, one having a greenish/tan color was observed speeding through the complex, going toward the apartments, which were located at the back of the property. When asked, the witness informed us that she was unsure as to which car actually had fired the weapon. According to our source, a friend yelled at the cars, telling them to slow down as children were outside. Upon yelling at the cars, the witness received the response saying, “fuck you, bitch.” Immediately after this, the shooting began. It is also important to make mention that the oldest child was only 14 years of age.

Allegedly, the intended target was a man named Mikey Byrd. While we have attempted to locate him as a means of establishing contact, we have yet to succeed. According to some witnesses, the police currently have two suspects in custody for questioning, though this remains unconfirmed. Further sources have indicated that the reason behind the shooting may have been from a previous drug deal gone wrong.

While much of this is currently circumstantial, we plan to stay on top of the situation, providing information as we are able. For now, all we can say is to stay tuned, we’ll keep you posted.