Before Forfeiture Is Finalized, Sheriff Racks Up 54k Miles On Seized Vehicle, Sells It To Private Buyer

from the road-(drug)-warriors dept

Drive it like you stole seized it.

Documents provided by Outside Legal Counsel show the department seized the Ostipow’s 1965 Chevy Nova SS on April 24, 2008, when the vehicle’s mileage was 73,865. [Sheriff William L.] Federspiel, who signed the vehicle title transfer form, sold the partially restored muscle car over a year later on June 4, 2009, for $1,500.

The vehicle’s title certificate filled out by Federspiel around the time it was sold says the mileage was 130,000 — 54,000 miles more than when the department seized the car.

The backstory to this seizure and extended joyride starts at the plaintiff’s farm. In 2008, the sheriff’s office obtained a warrant to search a second house on the Ostipow’s property — one in which their son lived. In the house, deputies found marijuana plants and seeds. The Ostipow’s steadfastly maintain they knew nothing about their son’s illegal activities. Presumably, they allowed him to live his own life in a house located some distance away from theirs. [Photo courtesy of Outside Legal Counsel]

Ostensibly there for drugs, deputies soon broadened their horizons.

Instead of only seizing the illegal plants and seeds, deputies seized essentially everything from the farmhouse, including, oddly, dozens of animal mounts being kept long-term at the farmhouse by Gerald because Royetta, his wife, simply didn’t like these mounted animals in the main house.

But that is not all the deputies seized. The deputies also went out to outbuildings of the farmhouse and seized all the equipment, deer blinds, hundreds of tools, and many other items which lacked any realistic connection to the pot plants and seeds of Steven’s grow. They even seized the ’65 Nova and the car trailer it was on.

Not satisfied with cleaning out the farmhouse the Ostipow’s son resided in (as well as every building surrounding it), the deputies returned with another warrant and cleaned out the Ostipow’s house — one located a half-mile away from the supposed grow operation. They found no illegal evidence, but that didn’t stop them from taking plenty of their property, including the cash in Gerald Ostipow’s wallet.

Then they just kept coming.

In the weeks that followed, deputies from the Saginaw County Sheriff’s Office would arrive, off duty, in their personal vehicles and would continue to take more items long after the completion of the execution of the search warrants. No inventory tabulation exists for these items taken and there appears to be no records of these “self-help” items being officially sold.

The proceedings — which have dragged on for eight years now — never resulted in criminal charges against the Ostipows. After a trip up to the state Supreme Court, it was finally determined that Gerald Ostipow “should have been aware” of the grow operation taking place on his property. But it was also determined that Royetta’s (Gerald’s wife) interest in the belongings taken was free and clear. The Sheriff’s office was ordered to return most the property it seized.

The problem is that the Sheriff’s department no longer had the property it seized, including the vehicle it racked up 54,000 miles on.

However, the injury inflicted upon the Ostipows was not complete. After the final judgment was entered, it was discovered that all of the Ostipow’s property had been sold by Sheriff Federspiel (he himself having signed the vehicle title transfer document for the Nova) and members of his department before there was a final determination about forfeitability of items seized and held.

The department’s actions are indicative of an agency that seldom has trouble retaining anything it designates as “guilty” property. So secure was the sheriff’s office in its belief that it would ultimately prevail — despite never bringing criminal charges against the couple whose assets it seized — that it moved ahead with converting the property to cash without having any legal right to do so.

The Ostipows are now suing [PDF] the sheriff and his deputies in federal court for blithely blowing past even the minimal protections granted to victims of asset forfeiture. In addition to $1 million+ in damages, the Ostipows are seeking declarations that the asset forfeiture processes deployed by the sheriff’s department are Constitutional violations and the compelled released of documents requested by the couple in an earlier FOIA request.

Hopefully, Sheriff Federspiel will learn from this experience. Then again, he’s already converted a seized Mustang into a department/personal vehicle and has gone on record with statements that portray his anti-drug efforts as shopping trips for his department.

Federspiel hopes his department will claim more vehicles through drug forfeiture or drunk driving laws to equip his six-person cadre of captains, lieutenants and sergeants by the end of his first term. “I don’t want to buy another vehicle for my command staff,” he says.

He’s targeted a 2008 black Cadillac Escalade which, if acquired, would become the mobile, anti-drug dealing billboard for Undersheriff Robert X. Karl.

Given that this is the voice of leadership in the department, it’s hardly surprising deputies feel search warrants entitle them to grab as much as they can from citizens they either can’t or won’t bring charges against.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Before Forfeiture Is Finalized, Sheriff Racks Up 54k Miles On Seized Vehicle, Sells It To Private Buyer”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: "should be in prison"

Of course there exists the regulatory/oversight agencies with the power to administer justice. That’s exactly what adds the insult to injury in these cases. Everything’s already in place to fix the banana republic these sorts have turned this country into, but it’s just not being used against anyone in the cartel.

It’s 100% the other half of what you said; there seems to be little to no inclination to apply said justice. It appears broad swaths of our government have come under the control of some very unsavory individuals who seek to perpetuate this sort of corruption because they share in the financial benefit such thievery provides.

So this is where we find ourselves. And we can be certain they will not stop on their own. Unfortunately, it’s up to us (and the remaining honest, well meaning people in government who the corrupt have currently marginalized and/or otherwise effectively silenced) to take back our businesses, institutions, and government and cut out these cancerous few from positions of leadership in our society.

And one of the first things you can do to help is, even in metaphor, do not exalt their skulduggery by referring to them as “lords”. Call them out for what they are – criminals – as they are nothing more.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: exalting their skulduggery

Lord is a position of power. In early feudalism they extorted the serfs by demanding tribute at swordpoint with a loose promise that they would defend them against other raiders. Only time and collusion with the clergy gave them legitimacy, but do imagine for an instant their vassals consented to rule.

The situation hasn’t changed here. I agree, this man is criminal. But by there being no available legal redress, it dispells the notion that anyone in that county lives under the rule of law.

Instead, they live by the whimsy of those in power. Call them what you want, but they are essentially feudal lords with the power of pit and gallows behind them.

And still, no one consents to their rule, but instead capitulates under their sollerets.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 exalting their skulduggery

Oh, I took your meaning to begin with. I understand your use of the word, “lords” was technically accurate. However, the nuance I was attempting to relate was that you do yourself, and all of us, a disservice by using such labels in this context.

Just as it might be technically accurate to describe the sheriffs in this article as ‘heroic’ or ‘public servants’ when they prevent a murder or otherwise act to thwart those that seek to harm the public, in context of their actions described here, they are acting as criminals. What good they might otherwise do, and whatever labels we might use to describe them in context of performing that good, does not apply in this case. Using words like “lords” – that also imply a certain dignity and refinement (as not all acts of lords involve stealing from the public at the point of a sword) – distracts ever so slightly from the specifics of the issue and therefore the specifics of possible solutions.

Regardless of whether you accept my nuance, it’s easy for me to see we share a very similar sentiment. It’s also apparent you possess an above average command of the written word. All writers are propagandists whether they appreciate it or not. And all sorts of very different words can be used to describe a given situation accurately. So, given your sentiment, I encourage you to select your words carefully so as to not only convey your meaning accurately, but also frame them in a way that does the greatest service to your sentiment.

So, ‘yes’, I get it, many affluent people/groups abuse their power and they’ve been doing it for a long time. But now let’s take it to the next level and frame those bastards in the worst possible light possible at all times (of course, whilst remaining accurate and refraining from outright hyperbole). Make every attempt to refrain from using their labels/framing when equally accurate terms apply. Terms that better describe them for the immoral human waste they’ve become. …is the point I’m trying to make here.

The criminal plutocrats/oligarchs do everything they can – all day, every day – to control the narrative. They choose their words carefully so as to convey a certain meaning. It’s up to us to take back that narrative.

Keep fighting the good fight. Stay strong brother.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 exalting their skulduggery

Actually, Uriel, you may find that quite a large proportion of the vassals are fine and dandy with the status quo because authoritarianism is awesome, or something. We live in a Fascist society and Fascism requires that the people are on board with the regime. And the people are on board till they fall foul of the regime.

art guerrilla (profile) says:

Re: Re:

nunh-unh, ’cause you have a right to a ‘fair and speedy trial’, NOT the pre-trial, which is where all the action is…
you do know that the way the laws have been both written and re-interpreted, the prosecuting attorneys have ALL the power to fuck you up, BEFORE the trial…
you get hemmed in with charges and seizure of assets, etc, such that THE ONLY practical way out is to ‘plead guilty’ EVEN IF IT IS SOMETHING YOU METAPHYSICALLY DID NOT DO…
such is both the power and abuse of their office…

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Two reasons really:

1) All the rules go right out the window as soon as the word ‘drugs’ are even mentioned, because clearly anyone even accused of being involved with drugs is a criminal who is lucky to get the protection of any ‘rights’ that the righteous people in the legal system deem to give them.

2) Most judges and prosecutors would sooner literally shoot their own foot than prosecute a cop or even bring charges against them. Not only would it expose the rot that infests the system to bring someone supposedly tasked with upholding the law on charges of violating it, but prosecutors and judges work with these same people, and many of them are unable or unwilling to admit that the ‘brave defenders of the public and the laws’ are worse than the criminals they put behind bars, both for personal reasons and because if they start cracking down on corruption then their ability to prosecute people might become more difficult.

lucidrenegade (profile) says:

One thing not mentioned in the Techdirt piece (but in the original) is that the parent’s house is in a different county (Shiawassee) than the son’s house where the pot was found (Saginaw). The warrent for the parent’s house was issued by a Saginaw county judge, not one from Shiawassee. Maybe it doesn’t ultimately matter from a legal standpoint, but it sure seems fishy. Wouldn’t surprise me if the Saginaw county judge is in cahoots with the Sheriffs department.

ltlw0lf (profile) says:

Re: Re:

One thing not mentioned in the Techdirt piece (but in the original) is that the parent’s house is in a different county (Shiawassee) than the son’s house where the pot was found (Saginaw).

Actually, according to both the attached lawsuit documents and the original report, neither house is located in Saginaw county.

But I totally echo all your other points, this looks stinky.

hij (profile) says:

A learning experience

Hopefully, Sheriff Federspiel will learn from this experience.

Making other people pay for the Sheriff’s disregard for the department’s mission of enforcing the law will surely teach him a valuable lesson. Unfortunately, it is the taxpayers who will pay the price, and the public who support him will have to pay the bill at the expense of anything else the county wishes to accomplish.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: What we deserve.

Those taxpayers elected the thief.

They deserve to pay.


I’ve been hearing sentiments like this a lot that we get the government we deserve and if we’re taking into consideration a human sense of justice, that’s bullshit. Those of us without power are still trying to work out just government. It’s just very prone to bugs and exploits.

The thief wasn’t elected as a thief. He was elected as the best option available to do a job. We can’t say rival candidates would be any better. The voting taxpayers we’re not aware this guy was going to abuse this system. They barely comprehend that the system is so readily ripe for abuse via asset forfeiture. We’re still shaken up about the notion that murderous police officers just don’t go to jail. Ever.

The voters who put this guy in office deserve to pay the way a mouse deserves to be eaten by a cat (The cat out-detects, out-runs and out-fights the mouse by far). If you believe the natural order is what we deserve, that applies to everyone:

~ Every American buried in rubble by a terrorist got what they deserved.

~ Every innocent man, woman and child gunned down by law enforcement got what they deserved.

~ Every European Jew incinerated by the German purge got what they deserved.

~ Every Cambodian little girl taking dick as a trafficked sex slave is getting what she deserves

~ Similarly, by that same logic, every unprosecuted rapist, every gluttonous dictator, every escaped Nazi, every golden-parachuted executive and every slush-funded running-dog politician who sells out his constituents all get what they deserve.

It’s not a just world.

But the only reason we know that is because we have a sense of what a just world looks like. (Exempli gratia, none of the above examples.)

People in power consistently abuse that power. The exceptions are rare.

We deserve better, and that outrage we feel is because we know that. We haven’t worked out how to get the society we deserve. It may not even be possible. But we know that this isn’t it. We know that in this society, deserve is an infinitesimal facter in what people get. We know we want something else. Almost anything else.

Perhaps you feel we should be taking more direct action. Only toppling tyrants takes time and energy, and costs more lives than we have to give. And each time we get it wrong there are new bosses same as the old bosses that require more spilled blood to overcome. There’s a stong disincentive to do anything but lay low.

We may be resigned to hide for now, until an insurrection has a chance in Hell, but that isn’t to say we deserve these circumstances. Otherwise we’d be teaching our kids that they’re fucked, and they should be thankful for their lot as wage slaves. At least they’re not trafficked sex slaves. We certainly wouldn’t be lying to them about Anyone can be President! Even you!

No, we deserve better. Just because we don’t know how to get it doesn’t mean we deserve it less.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Unfortunately, it is the taxpayers who will pay the price

Absolutely, because as anyone knows the biggest perk of being elected to any position is complete immunity from personal responsibility!

Just because anyone else who did even half of what these thugs did would have been tossed into a cell and/or fined into oblivion doesn’t mean they should face the same, the public is absolutely at fault for electing someone who ran on the platform of ‘I will rob anyone who has stuff I want, use it for my own personal benefit, and then sell it and pocket the money’.

Really, the very idea that someone from the nobili- public office should ever be held personally responsible for their actions is absurd, it’s not their fault they’re out raping and pillaging, the people who elected them made them do it, so the people who elected them are the ones really at fault, and deserve all the punishments as a result, sparing the completely innocent public servants from unjust punishment.

/poe(just in case it wasn’t crystal clear to those that do think like this)

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately, it is the taxpayers who will pay the price

We’re not doing enough to hold individuals and groups to account. Until an informed citizenry takes responsibility for holding the powers that be to account via the usual channels, that’s not going to happen.

The SOPA campaign proves it can be done; there’s a way, folks, but is there the will?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: taxidermy

I stand corrected on the original post.

There are a lot of different factors.


4VAC15-30-10. Possession, Importation, Sale, Etc., of Wild Animals.
Dealer arrested for selling bear mounts

SCOTTSVILLE, Va. – Part time antique dealer Calvin Bean thought he was doing a favor for his brother-in-law. Instead, he was arrested.
He could get 1-5 years in prison and a fine of $2,500 for selling two bear mounts at the River Town Antiques Mall in Scottsville. He was selling the mounts for his brother-in-law. Arrested by an undercover game warden posing as a customer, Bean claims he did not know he was breaking Virginia law, which prohibits the sale and purchase of “any wild animal.”

“There are both federal and state laws regarding selling taxidermy, and every state is different.”

arrested selling taxidermy

That One Guy (profile) says:

Turnabout is fair play...

Given the sheriff’s statement, and how it makes it pretty clear that he sees nothing wrong with just grabbing whatever catches his eye, should the Ostipows win their lawsuit I think it would be fitting if the fine wasn’t monetary, but rather allowed them to go through the sheriff’s house and the police station and just take whatever they wanted, up to the fine amount.

Give the sherrif and police a taste of what it’s like to have your stuff treated as nothing more than goods in a store with a ‘five-finger discount’, I imagine that would send a message much better than any fine amount that they themselves don’t have to pay.

(Of course it goes without saying that barring this the entire fine amount should be personally levied against the sheriff and those responsible, coming from their paychecks and pensions.)

Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Turnabout is fair play...

Actually, the Ostipows should sue the Sheriff’s Office — Not the Sheriff, the BUILDING.

Under asset forfeiture theory, any property used to aid in committing a crime is guilty until proven innocent, and not only that, but the owner must prove they deserve the property on top of that. Since any violation of constitutional rights by a group that you can win a federal rights violation lawsuit over is also a felony under federal criminal statutes, and without the building, cars, guns, etc certainly aided them in committing those felonies.

Anonymous Coward says:

“In addition to $1 million+ in damages”

They’d better make sure that after legal expenses any $ are kept a long way from the thieving, greedy fingers of any LEO anywhere. I would not be surprised if while sitting in donut shop all LEOs are busy collating lists of future suspects umm targets umm generous donors who have recently been awarded damages (court records), received inheritances (publically filed wills), won lotteries (often public), been promoted (LinkedIn, social media, cellphone intercepts), bought a new car/tractor/swimming pool (drones) etc etc.

freedomfan (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I would not be surprised if while sitting in donut shop all LEOs are busy collating lists of future suspects umm targets

From the quote at the end of the article, we can be fairly certain that they are sitting around and going over the vehicle registration records for the county to try to find out who might be driving a new Cadillac so that they can snowflake the driver and seize it for the Undersheriff.

(BTW, there may be those who think that’s an unfair assumption to make about those officers. But, read the article, they clearly are morally substandard specimens – willing to do things that pretty much everyone recognizes as wrong – and it’s reasonable to doubt they would have any qualms about such a scheme.)

The people who claim that civil asset forfeiture doesn’t change police priorities have their heads in the sand.

Anonymous Coward says:

Increasingly of late, we hear more and more actions taking place against law enforcement officers in the USA. When we see such stories, we understand why this is happening and realise that more will occur.

Less and less sympathy is forthcoming for downed officers. I watched (for less than a minute) an interview of a police officer (female to boot) and my reaction to the officer was one of immediate distrust and revulsion. The officer looked as mean as they come, as vicious, as dangerous as the worst of criminals.

I am thankful that the members of our constabulary are well trained and pleasant even though we have a vicious local drug problem. Every interaction with them has shown them to be professional, caring and helpful to the community. This may not be the norm elsewhere, but I am pleased that it is here.

When a public appearance of a law enforcement officer just raises your revulsion for them, then there is a serious problem with that officer and their ilk.

jeff brun says:

Re: Re:

There is a problem with this train of thought. No one admits to living or tolerating illegal police/law enforcement, but SOMEONE does.

The real issue is this strange myth about “if the police accuse, then “de facto” you are guilty”. I actually had a former Assistant Attorney General, who worked for Frank Kelly, operating as a defense attorney. He said “you can’t possibly find an ‘all black’, poor, inner-city jury, even in Wayne County”. So, it seems that non-poor, non-black, people can’t view objectively evidence placed in front of them without prejudice, though this is the unstated request of all jurors. Judge based on evidence, not on personal stipulations and stereotypes. If so, that is damn sad.

Prosecutors as well as defense attorneys are convinced that the public is so brainwashed that any mere question of the police is just not tolerable. What helps this myth along is lazy judges who seem to “pick and chose”, based on their own prejudices and bigotries, support law enforcement almost as “rubber stamp”. It’s less usual to see them make law enforcement (police or prosecutors) “prove” their case. What doesn’t help is when they come into a court room and they greet each other as if long lost classmates or adjunct family.

They will even acknowledge sloppy “police-work”, but still give benefit of doubt to law and not to defendant. That kind of flies in the face of “innocent until proven guilty”. More like “guilty unless you can either buy your innocence or have resources to fight the law”, and with prosecutors using what seems unlimited public money to chase any theory, how does a regular person, accused of something fight for their rights, if prosecutors are only limited by how much taxes can be collected at the county or state level?

Add to that the “incentive” of the forfeiture (civil law), not tied to the crime (criminal law), and the law enforcement or locality benefiting from the liquidation of what is confiscated, where is the “check and balance”? this provides seizure with no trial, and no repercussions if the “loot” is liquidated and spent. that’s “the law for sale”.For those defending cops, if I were an honest cop, watching dishonest cops profiting from “looting the citizens”, I can’t imagine that not affecting one’s perceptions at some point.It’s just human.,

Skeeter says:

The Constitution

There’s a BIG reason that the Declaration of Independence is so critical to our founding documents. If you read it closely, it is basically an ‘arrest warrant’ against King George III, for all the horrible things he did and why we felt it was important to break away from him to start with. Now, it seems, with a swift 1-2 punch, we’ve got a bunch of ‘globalists’ in U.S. Government who seem to think its just fine to repeat all of George’s crimes and that nothing will come of it. First, of course, is that they step on all the other Amendments in the Constitution to ‘test the waters’ for how far they can go.

You really only have one choice – bring the Constitution back to life as the ultimate law, or just open your arms and welcome in the government gestapo. Take your pick, but this is really the only pick you get, until you make a decision.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Landlord-tennant relationship

Nonsense, clearly if you own something you know at all times what state it’s in and what it’s being used for. This is why it’s flat out impossible to lose say your keys, since you always know at all times where they are and in what state.

Given this ability of course he should have known, he wouldn’t have even had to leave his house to know that something illegal was taking place, and as such the blame for his negligence in not stopping it before it happened was entirely and reasonably placed on his head.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Landlord-tennant relationship

“random inspections. And that’s not gonna happen. Landlords just can’t do that.”

Do we know the son was legally a tenant and that the parents were not regular visitors to the son’s house nor the son to his parents house? We know that the mounted animals were stored at the house occupied by the son even though they belonged to the father ie property appears to be commingled. The second (son’s) house is on the parent’s land, not a separate house on separate land.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Gangs with better uniforms and badges.

For far to long we’ve given them everything they ever dreamed of, because we need to be safe.
It wasn’t important when they did it to the other guy, because they were bad people.
Now that they are taking down good people, suddenly its a problem.
They let them run free and looked away time after time, now they expect we can put the genie back into the bottle.

Why pay higher taxes when we can just take the money from bad people?
Why question why a department of 4 needed 8 MRAPS?
Why wonder why the answer to serving a warrant over parking tickets necessitates rolling out SWAT?
Why wonder why they can literally execute people on film, and a jury still decide the cop did nothing wrong?
Why wonder why cops commit crimes and are allowed to retire keeping their pension & good name to move onto the next town to loot?
Why wonder why cops shoot at dogs and hit toddlers, but no questions asked about their inability to hit a target or check their field of fire?

Cops are above the little people they lord over, not as their protectors but as enforcers of those with more power and those with power allow them to demand any tribute they desire from the serfs. It keeps them happily in their place of keeping the serfs down, scared of what might happen if a cop decides they look like a demon charging them on the street.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I don't see what the problem is here.

They’ve got poor Whatever so confused now he can’t tell the difference between when his brothers are “doing their jobs” and when they’re clearly engaged in criminal activity. All poor Whatever can see is blue.

…and that makes me blue. Boo hoo. :”(

Poor Whatever, so loyal, so simple, so alone.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I don't see what the problem is here.

“that law enforcement is doing its job”

Let me ask a question here – just what is the job of law enforcement? In detail please.

If the job of law enforcement is to kill, steal and destroy, then they are doing a ripper job of it. This certainly means that they are working in accordance with the directives put out by their supreme leader Satan, since that is his basic job description.

If the job is to serve and protect, then they have failed abysmally and should be sacked with complete blackballing of their reputations?

So, again, what is their jobdescription, eh?

freedomfan (profile) says:

Re: I don't see what the problem is here.

law enforcement is doing its job

Parody or not, this really is part of the problem. Lots of things that police do are totally outrageous – and “policing for profit” (e.g. civil asset forfeiture, which should absolutely not exist as a law enforcement tool) is always high on the outrage scale. Abuses during detention, questionable shootings, stop-and-frisk, wrong-door raids, and so on are other examples.

But, all of these problems are made worse because of the War on Drugs. Think about it: The worst examples that come readily to mind of any of these things are often part of WoD efforts. And, because we allow the WoD to continue and elect people who declare that they support it (and often want to escalate it), it is part of the police’s job. That’s not to say that policing would be perfect without the WoD, but it’s a big factor. Take away the WoD and either the abuses decrease by an order of magnitude or they continue, but without much of the WoD fig leaf that “justifies” them.

Mr Big Content says:

This Could Never Happen In Teh USA

Our freedoms are safe, not like in these foreign places. You know why? Because of the Second Amendment. The Government knows, if it ever tried to trample on any of our IMPORTANT rights, our guns would be out and trained on them like a ton of bricks.

So don’t sweat the small stuff. We can sleep safe at night, with that ultimate guarantor of our rights close at hand, under that pillow.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: A gun alone doesn't guarantee rights.

The virtue of a gun is that someone twice your size can’t have his way with you, and that your rival’s two buddies will think twice before backing his play.

It’s not protection against a posse comitatus, unless you can muster one of your own. So no, our freedoms are not safe when our law enforcement are willing (eager, even) to gun down their fellow Americans.

Andy says:

What would happen?

Maybe another gang needs to go and kidnap the police force, every single one of them so they cannot seek help from other members of there police gang, then go to every one of there home and confiscate everything, get a few big trucks to cart everything away to a distant state and sell it all , giving the proceeds to there families, include any guns and weapons found in the police station and the homes of the police officers.

Once the buildings are all empty all vehicles removed and any cash is removed then release the police officers back into the community.

I support any gang that competes with the illegal police gangs like these.

Some times the only action to punish those responsible for there actions is illegal and as the police have used illegal tactics there should be no reason for any other people not to punish the police if the court refuse to.

Ed (profile) says:

No surprise.

The whole good cop/bad cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone’s anecdote about his Uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop. We need only consider the following: (1) a cop’s job is to enforce the laws, all of them; (2) many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked; (3) therefore every cop has agreed to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked. There are no good cops. ~Robert Higgs

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...