All stops are impromptu and need citizen oversight.The person walked away without a citation. Great stop by ISP! The corporal was training a new guy.
Another thing I noticed, as we're driving around; On the Washington S. beat, the Muni Police were no where to be found.
Comment below if you've noticed an irregularity to your local police patrol! To make positive changes in our areas, we need evidence showing lack of positive chance.
This may sound contradicting; We need Laws/Acts for our rights.
Our First amendment needs reinforcement, against claims of obstruction. I personally spent 95 days in jail for "crossing police tape" 100 yards away from the crime scene. I even have video of officer Kraft adjusting the tape for pedestrians to use the sidewalk.
Check out the Band Act and Right to Know Act.
With a topic that should be common sense, remembering and presenting the details with your personal experience will be easy.
Somehow, 4 out of 5 LEOs have only enough sense to:
★Run patrol SUVs into inanimate objects (pending records request - on or off duty damaged vehicles)
★Shoot himself in the leg (Deputy Givens)
★Allow a man to hang himself in a holding cell with mandatory five minute visual checks and only noticing after 20 minutes.
Bring these Acts to your next City Council meeting. Here's the meat and potatoes of Bane Act: California Civil Code § 52.1 (The Bane Act)
Civil Code Section 52.1, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, authorizes suit against anyone who by threats, intimidation, or coercion interferes with the exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the state or federal Constitutions or laws without regard to whether the victim is a member of a protected class. (Civ. Code § 52.1.) To obtain relief under Section 52.1, a plaintiff does not need to allege that a defendant acted with discriminatory animus or intent; liability only requires interference or attempted interference with the plaintiff’s legal rights by the requisite threats, intimidation, or coercion. (Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 841-843 (“Venegas I”).)
“The essence of a Bane Act claim is that the defendant, by the specified improper means (i.e., ‘threats, intimidation or coercion’), tried to or did prevent the plaintiff from doing something he or she had the right to do under the law or to force the plaintiff to do something that he or she was not required to do under the law.” (Austin B. v. Escondido Union Sch. Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 883.)
0 Comments