The American Nightmare Revealed! (Exhibit F) (2 Articles)

Image: http://www.freethoughtproject.com

After having read the following article, I would suggest to the court and their bloodthirsty gestapo-agents that they keep this kind of totalitarian-bullshit reserved for the sheep-like city-folk, since the country-folk I know just love to shoot and kill anything with four legs and fur, especially when the four legs and fur’s handlers are trespassing on their land. Or to put it another way, uninvited, unwelcome gestapo-agents (stormtroopers), trespassing with their vicious K-9 pals, will simply be placing themselves in harm’s way. And I do mean in harm’s way, since most of these country folk are more than fed up with this elite-swine owned and operated government!

I usually hate extreme violence, but in this particular case, I would love to be at one of these donnybrooks; just sitting there, watching and cheering as the country folk take matters into their own hands, and “with extreme prejudice”.

In fact, it would be my guess, right at the moment, that when or if civil/class/race warfare does come a callin’ again, it will begin, in earnest, in rural America, and not in large urban areas. There are far too many far-left “safe-space” seeking mice that roar in the cities, who, when the going gets real tough, will get going, with tails tucked between their “triggered” buttocks:

Horrifying Precedent — Court Rules Cops Can Allow Dogs to Maul Innocent People

By Matt Agorist

A disturbing and reckless precedent was just set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit which held that the US Constitution does not necessarily require cops to stop a K9 from tearing an innocent person to shreds. Seriously.

According to the ruling in the case of an innocent homeless man being mauled, nearly to death by a K9, police officers who deliberately allow their K9 to maul innocent people will be immune from liability and victims will have zero recourse.

As Slate reports:

The grisly facts of the case are uncontested. One night in 2010, Officer Terence Garrison and his police dog, Bikkel, were tracking a robbery suspect in High Point, North Carolina. Bikkel led Garrison to an abandoned house, then attacked a man crouched behind a bush near the front stoop. Garrison quickly realized that the man did not match the physical description of the suspect. (In fact, he was Christopher Maney, a homeless man accused of no crime.) But Garrison decided that the man might still be dangerous, so he demanded that Maney show his hands before calling off Bikkel. But Maney was using his hands to try to protect himself against the dog and pleaded with Garrison to stop Bikkel’s attack, insisting that he had done nothing wrong. After allowing the mauling to continue for 10 seconds, Garrison finally told Bikkel to stop. He then put Maney in handcuffs and called medical support.

Because Garrison allowed his K9 to continue mauling Maney, the innocent homeless man suffered severe injuries. By the time he was brought to the hospital, Maney was in critical condition. Bikkel had torn apart the top of Maney’s head, removing an entire two-square-inch section of hair, skin, and tissue — which would later require a 16-inch skin graft. The dog also bit Maney’s arms and legs so severely that it led to a brachial artery blood clot with massive blood loss, bruising, and swelling.

After making a long and painful recovery, Maney attempted to hold the officer accountable for his sadistic and torturous act. He then sued Garrison for violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures.

As it stands, a dog bite qualifies as a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. So, Maney argued that the time Garrison allowed the K9 to rip him apart was unreasonable.

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit did not agree. Insanely enough, the court concluded that Garrison was shielded from liability because he did not violate a “clearly established” constitutional right.

{Sojourner note: ONE MORE TIME, your precious CONstitution isn’t worth the parchment it was scribbled on! How much more fucking proof do you need?!}

According to the majority, as Slate reports, Fourth Amendment precedents do not unambiguously prohibit officers from “prolong[ing] a dog bite seizure until a subject complies with orders to surrender.” The majority analogized the mauling to a “Terry stop,” during which an officer may briefly stop and frisk individuals on the basis of “reasonable suspicion.” Garrison, the majority concluded, had really just engaged in a type of Terry stop in which “the classic Terry tableau is replaced by something more dynamic.”

Simply put, the court ruled that Garrison’s use of his K9 to maul a man nearly to death, was reasonable because it is no different than a stop and frisk…

Read More Here:

Source: Horrifying Precedent — Court Rules Cops Can Allow Dogs to Maul Innocent People

P.S.

SWAT TEAM DESTROYS INNOCENT FAMILY’S HOME LOOKING FOR UNARMED HOMELESS MAN

MARCH 13, 2017 | THE FREE THOUGHT PROJECT | THEFREETHOUGHTPROJECT.COM

A married couple claim Fresno sheriff’s officers destroyed their house by using it as a training ground for a teargas-wielding SWAT team, 50 vehicles, two helicopters, a K-9 unit and a fire truck — because an unarmed homeless man had been found in their closet.

David and Gretchen Jessen sued Fresno County and the City of Clovis on March 8 in Fresno County Court. They say the unconstitutional assault on their home was “excessive, unreasonable, violent, destructive … intrusive … unnecessary and unreasonable.”

The Jessens, who are farmers, say in their complaint that the sheriff and police used their house as a military battleground “because the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department and/or Clovis Police Department had found, by accident, the perfect location to conduct a training exercise on a rural home, on a dead-end street, in rural Fresno County, where ‘civilians’ were not present, ‘civilians’ were not going to congregate, ‘civilians’ were not going to observe or interfere with the military training assault on the Jessens’ home and the situation posed no risk of injury to the officers.”

In the lengthy complaint, David Jessen says it all started on June 11, 2016, when sheriff’s officers called him and said his house may have been broken into. He called his wife to tell her, then drove home and found four patrol cars in front of the house and officers scattered around the perimeter. One held a bullhorn and was yelling “come out,” and “hands up.”

An officer told Jessen that a homeless man had broken into his house after construction workers had kicked him out of a vacant house nearby. When asked if there were guns inside, Jessen said he had two unloaded shotguns and a loaded .357 magnum, all of them hidden so well that only he could find them.

The officer told Jessen the man had threatened to shoot anyone who came inside and asked him and his family, who had just arrived, to wait elsewhere. After taking his family to a friend’s house 10 minutes away, Jessen drove back to unload some farm equipment and found law enforcement cars lining the road to his house for a quarter of a mile, plus two ambulances, a fire truck, and two helicopters circling above…

Read More Here:

SWAT Team Destroys Innocent Family’s Home Looking for Unarmed Homeless Man | The Daily Sheeple

Advertisements