The Very Definition of a Police State

Yesterday afternoon, I stood in the backyard at the home of friends, waiting.  The day before, my friends were married in that backyard; yesterday the reception was held there.  People were arriving; the reception was just getting underway.

The beginning noises of the reception were drowned out by the buzz of a small airborne black-and-white vehicle.  I watched as the helicopter appeared to be repeatedly circling the yard in which I was standing. I could just read a few of the words on the tail.  One stood out in capitals: “POLICE.”

Definitions of Important Terms

Before going on, let’s get a few definitions out of the way.  I hate to pepper you with these, but I don’t want you to think I’m misusing words. So let’s take our definitions straight from a respected American English dictionary.

Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines a “police state” as:

a political unit (as a nation) characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by the police and especially secret police in place of the regular operation of the administrative and judicial organs of the government according to established legal processes: a totalitarian state.

“Abitrary” means:

1: depending on choice or discretion; specifically : determinable by decision of a judge or tribunal rather than defined by statute

2  a: (1) : arising from unrestrained exercise of the will, caprice, or personal preference : given to expressing opinions that arise thus (2) : selected at random or as a typical example

b : based on random or convenient selection or choice rather than on reason or nature

A Wikipedia article notes,

The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

Let’s look at one more from Merriam-Webster.  A partial definition of “totalitarian” is:

1 a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy …
b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life ….

If you’re feeling energetic, you might look up “repressive,” “repression,” “repress” and “secret police,” also.

A “Police State” Does Not Require 24-Hour Lockdown

The helicopter circled for perhaps five, maybe ten minutes.  Eventually, it appeared to lose interest and buzzed off.  The reception began.  Toasts were made.  The helicopter was forgotten.

A lot of people think that a “police state” is something like Nazi Germany.  They hear or read words like “rigid” and “repressive” and they just assume it had to be something like that and not something like modern America.

In fact, most people who think that don’t actually know much about what it was like to live in Nazi Germany.

[W]ith the history of Nazi Germany, it has been tempting to paint pictures in stark black and white, clearly delineating good and evil — for was not the Third Reich the most thoroughly evil political system ever created?  (Richard Bessel, Life in the Third Reich, p. xvii (1987).)

Tempting as it is, to paint in black-and-white is nearly always a mistake.  That is particularly true when it comes to police states.  For one thing, as I have written elsewhere, police states do not spring upon the world fully formed.  They evolve from other forms of government.  Pre-Nazi Germany, as I have also noted elsewhere, was not altogether dissimilar from the United States of America.  It was a constitutionally-based democracy with clearly-delineated, constitutionally-protected rights such as freedom of the press and requirements of habeas corpus.  Hitler eventually did away with these rights — legally — “for national security purposes” and special courts were created outside the normal system for the treatment of the nation’s enemies, some of whom were citizens of the United States.  Only government-approved attorneys were allowed and the hearings were secret, again, for reasons of “national security.”  Sound familiar yet?

Unfortunately, our view of how Weimar politics worked is still very much outlined by the savage pens of [numerous writers], who depicted Germany as Teutschland, a swastika-emblazoned preserve of stiff monarchists, bloodthirsty generals, monocled industrialists, and saber-scarred academicians who somehow combined to produce the horror of the Third Reich….

Yet these observations completely obscure the essence of National Socialism, which amounted to a grassroots repudiation of Teutschland in the name of a renovated nation, the Third Reich.  (Peter Fritzsche, Germans into Nazis, p. 211 (1999).)

The Nazi tent was big enough for big business and workers, liberals and conservatives, those who wanted to be proud of their country and those who were just tired of what had come before.

A grassroots repudiation of the existing political parties.  Hmmm…  The United States is nothing like pre-Nazi Germany.

Josh Gets Detained…At Gunpoint

After the usual announcements, the toasts, the throwing of the bouquet and tossing of the garter, a few of the people began dancing.  I made my way to Hank, the groom, who was talking with a couple of other people.  As I approached, one of the newly-arrived guests was saying, “So I got out and they told me to just back up slowly with my hands above my head….”  Whether talking shop, testifying or testilying, law enforcement officers refer to this as an “extraction.”

The guest, “Josh,” was relating the story of how he almost missed the wedding reception when he was stopped by police down at the end of the street, less than a block away, who surrounded his car and ordered him out at gunpoint.

One cop pulled me over.  Suddenly, another car zoomed right in front of me and stopped.  Then another pulled up.  When I saw I was surrounded and I noticed in my rear-view mirror that an officer was drawing his weapon, I was like, “Holy Shit! This is serious!”

And he told himself he needed to stay calm and do whatever he was told. He wasn’t joshing.

What was so serious that Josh had to be stopped, surrounded and “extracted” from his car at gunpoint?  Apparently, Josh drives a gray Audi.  Apparently, someone, somewhere in Fresno, driving a gray car — Josh would later point out that, unlike his car, witnesses described the sought-after car as being without license plates — had been involved in a shooting.

He went on to explain that the police somehow managed to avoid shooting him long enough to find out that he was not, in fact, the “driver of a gray car” for whom they were looking.

Stopping and Detaining People in the Modern U.S. of A.

The United States used to have a concept known as “probable cause.”  The aforementioned dictionary defines that as “a reasonable ground for supposing that a criminal charge is well-founded.”  For a long time, this was the only ground for stopping drivers suspected of breaking the law.  More recently, stops have been permited under a less-restrictive standard of “reasonable suspicion.”

Without doing an exhaustive history of the terms, it is my recollection that during the evolution of “reasonable suspicion,” it was originally identified as being quite similar to “probable cause.”

The California Supreme Court has “distilled” the meaning of “reasonable suspicion” from decisions of the United States Supreme Court:

A detention is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, provide some objective manifestation that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity.  (People v. Souza 9 Cal.4th 224, 231; 885 P.2d 982 (1994).)

So what made it reasonable to stop Josh’s car one block from the wedding reception?  If you ask the officers, they had specific articulable facts.  The car was gray.  In light of the totality of circumstances — that is, they were looking for someone in a gray car who was involved in a shooting in Fresno and Josh’s car was gray — they had some objective manifestation that Josh may be involved in criminal activity.

Thus we arrive at the modern meaning of “reasonable suspicion,” which is pretty much “whether or not a law enforcement officer wanted to do it.”  (See the definitions above, particularly “arbitrary.”)  Simple.

And it simply provides us with an example of the very definition of a police state.

The Rise and Fall of the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution was intended to ensure that the government did not arbitrarily stop and search people.  The Amendment was added to the Constitution because people were concerned that the government would eventually forget that it was deliberately created with limited powers. Our Founders feared the government would then think it had uncontrolled power over citizens so as to stop and search anyone, anywhere, anytime, for anything.

You see, before the United States government existed, “law enforcement” officers in America — British soldiers and tax collectors — would go into homes and businesses and search people with “general warrants.”  The Excise Act of 1754 created a situation where authorities had unlimited power to interrogate people about how they used things that had been imported to America.  There was a “colonial epidemic of general searches.” It was the resistance of Americans to this sort of thing which resulted in the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence which ultimately allowed for the creation of the United States of America.

What happened to Josh — what happens to nearly anyone who comes into contact with the police today — is exactly what caused George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and thousands of American colonists to fight a war against the British.  The authorities surrounding and stopping gray cars with license plates and extracting drivers at gunpoint because someone in Fresno driving a gray car without license plates was involved in a shooting is arbitrary.  Arbitrary stops by the police are wrong and unconstitutional.

Yet arbitrary seizures like this occur in Fresno practically every day.  Normally when you hear about them, you don’t think twice because in the stories you normally hear, the police got the bad guys.  Or maybe you just accept it as part of the price of going into a courthouse or other government building.  Once or twice in the decades before this became normal, someone came in with a weapon.  There’s a saying that even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in awhile.  But if the authorities can search whoever they want, whenever they want, without a warrant, they’ll find more nuts.

That’s what happens in a police state where police arbitrarily utilize their power to control the populace.  The fact that they sometimes — maybe even often — catch the bad guys does not justify stopping anyone who might be one of the bad guys.  All of us might be one of the bad guys.  A lot of people drive gray cars.

At one time, the courts of the United States prevented such things.  Where the Constitution prohibited the officers from making arbtirary stops, the courts enforced the Constitution.  Increasingly, the courts either “interpret” the Constitution in such a way that the Fourth Amendment means nothing, or they say that when law enforcement ignored the Constitution, it was “harmless error,” which amounts to the same thing.  (Think about it, Judge.)

We Have Met the Enemy And He Is Us

Almost a half-century — almost fifty years! — ago, a great civil-liberties editorialist for The Washington Post, Alan Barth, said,

Free men can never rely upon courts alone for the preservation of their freedom. Courts can give warning of danger. But they are really powerless to protect us from ourselves. They can remind us of our heritage. But they cannot preserve that heritage for us.

Today our courts no longer even give warning.  They’re not only powerless to protect us from ourselves, they’ve joined us on the march to totalitarianism.

But we need to remember that just as not every car is driven by Josh, not every car is driven by criminals.  Unless we change things, unless the Constitution is re-adopted and once again honored, one of these days, you may be surrounded and “extracted” from your car at gunpoint.

Let’s hope you do as good a job of keeping your head as he did.

Recommended Reading

Fresno Criminal Defense
2014 Tulare Street #627 FresnoCA93721 USA 
 • 559-233-8886

Comments

22 Responses to “The Very Definition of a Police State”

  1. capmotion on May 31st, 2009 9:54 am

    You should also include “Mean Justice,” by Ed Humes, on your reading list; the Muller volume has appeared in my own pleadings a few times over the years, pissing some judges off.

    It should be recalled that the present proactive professional policeman was foreign to the Framers; they had been evicted in #10 of the Declaration and had not returned until after the Civil War, when it was learned that “emergency” and “war” could justify erosions of liberty and constitutional theorems.

    So long as the post-New Deal/Great Society public naively believes that proactive police exist to protect them, and that constant protection is a desirable value in a society supposedly dedicated to liberty, the Statist/police state-ism you report here will continue, and increase. Cops lurking in the shadows, or hovering in the sky, waiting to find “violators” on whom they can pounce, is anathema to the regime of Liberty established by the Framers and should be undone, or rebelled against.

  2. RickH on May 31st, 2009 11:05 am

    Wow. I’m always hoping someone will read and feel compelled to comment. To have Captain Motion comment is something I wouldn’t have expected! (Thank you.)

    The book by Ed Humes can be found by clicking the link to Mean Justice.

    I’ll have to get a copy now myself.

  3. S. Siler on May 31st, 2009 4:29 pm

    The problem is that the people at large have given away those rights afforded by the Constitution for (false) “safety” and nobody (or very few) even realize(s) how far it has gone. It has gone very far, indeed. Only a miniscule few are aware and/or willing to attempt to regain the freedoms secured by the Founding Fathers, and those must be wary of reprisal.

  4. Daniel san on May 31st, 2009 5:58 pm

    Rick I love ya brother but you have to admit that if you were on the other side of the gun, this is an easy mistake to make and tensions run high when cops are looking for shooters.

    I think the problem is that our PD’s don’t do enough to reign in the uncontrolled testrone and adrenaline that cops have. Too many get on a huge power trip and high horse and lose touch with reality and the fact that they’ve made plenty of mistakes in their own lives.

    We’re all people and all have the same goals – we just want to live our lives in peace and enjoy them. Some cops are like pitbulls that have been left in the cage far too long, but I think that most are like loyal German Shepards, trying to do what’s right.

    Still, this sucked for Josh and I think Fresno PD owes this guy a HUGE apology. If they’d simply treat the taxpayers that allow them to exist with the same courtesy as they seem to exhibit to each other, and not lose sight of the fact that without our consent, they do not exist, things could improve greatly. I do agree that if they stay on the current overzeaolous “police state” course, eventually that will lead to rebellion, anarchy and their eventual demise – thinking WAY down the road but that is the eventual outcome of overzealous “protectors” who lose sight of their original missions – to protect and SERVE. They serve US – not vice versa.

  5. J Dyer on June 1st, 2009 8:10 am

    Unreal.

  6. Eric Essman on June 1st, 2009 10:44 am

    Mr. Horowitz:
    Once again painting most police officers as Nazi like hooligans. God help you if you are ever in the position of having a burglar break into your house in the middle of the night and have to call a cop. Yes, cops are human. There are bad ones and good ones. But there are far more good ones than bad ones and most people realize that. Why don’t you ever focus on the real threats to society Mr. Horowtiz? And the threats are not the Police. I feel much more threatened by out of control gang bangers wanting to prove themselves by randomly shooting some unsuspecting passerby. I feel a little sorry for Mr. Horowitz. He sees black as white and up as down. In a true Police state Mr. Horowitz would not even be allowed to write a blog like this. The fact that he can engage in writing a blog such as this is evidence that in fact we “do not” live in a Police state.

  7. Eric Essman on June 1st, 2009 11:59 am

    Sometimes I wish there was a state or nation that people could go to that dislike the Police so much. They could go there and part of the social contract would be that there is no Police force. I think that what we would find, is that the vast majority of people who went to live there would be begging the societies they came from , that did have an organized Police force to take them back as quickly as possible. No sane person wants to live in a state of anarchy. The Police are not always perfect but they do a very very difficult job and put their lives on the line to protect us and our loved ones. I think that once in a while it would be nice for the public to thank them and tell them that they are appreciated rather than holding them up to near constant ridicule. I find it rather telling that when Mr. Horowitz see’s a Police helicopter his first reaction is to become frightened or feel a sense of doom. My first reaction upon seeing a cop is usually a feeling of relief and appreciation. We are all different in that respect.

  8. Ray on June 1st, 2009 4:28 pm

    > If you ask the officers, they had specific articulable facts… Thus we arrive at the modern meaning of “reasonable suspicion,” which is pretty much “whether or not a law enforcement officer wanted to do it.”

    There will always be some element of “discretion” in determining how much something makes sense. It’s hard to draw a clear line between capricious and reasonable. An incident like this with the grey car involved in a shooting could fall squarely into the grey area between the two.

    I have to believe that if they’re putting the resources of a helicopter into a particular area that there are elements of the situation encouraging them to think that this will be useful to the purpose of finding the suspect. In this regard I think their actions might not be considered arbitrary. I doubt the presence of the wedding had anything to do with their thinking. (“So what made it reasonable to stop Josh’s car one block from the wedding reception?”)

    It’s certainly not inconceivable that a police officer could be influenced by any of a vast array of unreasonable biases in their work, or worse yet could be influenced by any of a vast array of selfish, unofficial motivations. I bet it happens all the goddamned time. This extraction was as close to proof of such malfeasance, however, as maybe Josh’s car was reasonably suspicious.

    Part of the disregard for people that facilitates abuse of authority comes from a feeling of separation. “Us v. them”. Authorization for physical dominion over people is doubtlessly a large factor in developing the “us v. them” mindset. You can’t eliminate this factor, but you can maybe lessen its effect or find other ways to discourage the separateness mindset. Determining all the salient factors and counteracting them as you can sounds like a good idea.

    Coming at the problem of totalitarianism with an antagonistic mindset towards the specific elements that you see as problematic (i.e., the police) is an understandable reflex. And it makes sense at first blush. But if you agree with me that an “us v. them” mentality is a substantial factor in making the bad police mindset, you might consider coming at rehabilitation through a method other than condemnation and rejection.

    A disturbed child might intend you harm out of an immature or unreasonable reaction to past experience — say they spent time in an abusive household and thought love was shown through scorn. Their misbehavior would not be stopped through condemnation.

    I don’t want to deny you the right of expressing your feelings about incident. It’s very important that you do so. I recommend you find good ways to do so. Be careful not to use a way that exacerbates the situation.

    Can you imagine having the police officers say “We’re very sorry, sir, for the inconvenience and grief you might be experiencing from this incident. We’re doing the best we can in service of all the people of our city. If you have any comments at all that you’d like to share, please contact me at the number on my card. Good day.”? Can you imagine them being more inclined to say these things after telling them they’re making a police state?

  9. RickH on June 1st, 2009 4:47 pm

    Mr. Essman,

    I don’t recall anywhere saying that I became frightened or felt a sense of doom when I saw the helicopter.

    I continue to approve your posts so that they can show up here, even though I believe you don’t read the articles completely before you write your responses.

    You and I do not see things the same. This is clear and I understand that. Lots of people don’t see things the same as you do; lots of people don’t see them the same as I do. I do not mind that you disagree with me. But I will ask you to quit misrepresenting what I’ve stated. Make your disagreement and honest one.

    If you cannot do that one thing — that is, stop stating or implying that I’ve said things I have not said — then I will no longer approve your posts. I am not a government. You don’t have constitutionally-guaranteed rights to post on my blog. I set up comments for honest and open, thoughtful discussion. That does not mean you have to agree with me.

    It does mean you should quit pretending that I believe or say things that I neither believe nor say.

    Besides, you look like you can’t make up your mind. When you do understand what I’m saying, or you like it, you have a polite response, like you did on “Bad Cop, uh…Bad Cop.” When you don’t understand, or when you don’t like what I’ve said, you make false statements and imply or make negative statements about my personality.

    The public — me included — does give the police accolades when they deserve it. As a defense attorney, it is my job, with requirements set down by the State Bar of California, to make sure the State and its agents (law enforcement officers, DAs and judges) follow the law and to make them prove their cases. Too often, they do neither. But people with attitudes like those you’ve expressed here want to “give them the benefit of the doubt.”

    The result is that we have civil rights ignored and over 100,000 innocent people in jail or prison.

    You may not like it, but the Founders of this nation actually did not establish police departments (those didn’t come along until 1838 in Boston, 1844 in New York and 1854 in Philadelphia). In fact, I think they would not have wanted them. We don’t have a state of anarchy without police departments. If we did, they’d have been in a state of anarchy until the mid to late 1800s in most of the United States. Yet that wasn’t the case.

    And, in fact, one can make an argument that the Founders would roll in their graves over the idea that we have police departments. They didn’t believe in “standing armies in peacetime” and would surely have seen police departments as standing armies.

    Believe it or not, our Founders thought people should have a huge amount of freedom to make life choices which we currently do not have. Our Founders knew that power has a corrupting influence on everyone, practically without exception.

    At any rate, again, disagree with me if you wish. Make logical arguments against what I’m saying. Try to back up those arguments. That’s what this comments section is for. I don’t ask that people come here just to praise or agree with me. I also don’t ask that they come here just to tell me how stupid they think I am, or how twisted, or how anti-police (which isn’t even actually true), or how [fill in your favorite insult]. What I hope is that there will be honest discussions.

    Because the problems with our “justice” system are significant. DAs, judges and myself periodically have discussions in which they agree with that last statement, even though I suspect it will offend you.

    And the thing is, the problems will only be addressed and, hopefully, fixed or at least improved, if we have honest dialog about the best ways to do that.

    So stop twisting my comments. Disagree? Fine. Just stop twisting my comments to imply or state that I’ve said something I didn’t. Or, I’m sorry, the alternative is that, yes, I will stop your posts from going through. Not because you disagree with me (as I’ve now said repeatedly, because I think you have a hard time hearing this), but because you cannot have an honest dialog without being insulting and implying insulting things.

    This is my last word on the subject. I’m not going to get into another long argument with you. If you are incapable of at least being honest about what I’ve said, your posts will not be approved.

    Thank you.

  10. Ray on June 2nd, 2009 3:32 pm

    The police saved Mr. Essman’s life.

    It’s impossible for him emotionally to accept devaluation of the police.

    It’s critical for him emotionally that others validate his deeply-carved gratitude.

    Run afoul of either of these things and he’ll stumble out of bounds into irrationality, misperception, and mischaracterization.

    Lest your blood pressure and health be affected, I recommend you grasp these mechanisms before you push for him to behave.

    Frustration caused by people not playing by the rules (being irrational, twisting words)… is the same thing as the frustration caused by attachment to the idea that people must play by the rules.

    We’ve all got our biases. It’s a shame we fight one another about them. It only entrenches us.

  11. RickH on June 3rd, 2009 6:34 am

    Honest and open discussion is welcome. Continually twisting the truth, stating those with whom you disagree have said things they have not said and then personally attacking them on that basis will not be tolerated any longer.

    I won’t allow it if someone does it to him; I won’t allow it if someone does it to you; I will no longer allow it if it’s done to me.

    As I’ve said, disagreement is one thing. You and I, for example, have not infrequently disagreed with one another when we talk about philosophical or social issues. We don’t attack one another as part of the debate.

    In the old days, people were expected to argue passionately, but reasonably and, if not exactly politely, honestly and without rudeness. Today, apparently, this can only be accomplished by posting “Terms of Use” to remind people about ordinary social courtesy and give them a heads up as to what will not be approved for posting, then simply enforcing it.

    It would appear I’m going to have to go the way of many other blogs and billboards online and put up a “Terms of Use” document.

  12. Ray on June 3rd, 2009 2:11 pm

    As the person with power over this blog it is your ability to allow or disallow.

    As the person who exerts the effort to make this blog happen, I’d say it would be fair for you to allow or disallow as pleases you.

    I know you’re a respectful person with an interest in principles and shared benefit, so when you give Mr. Essman a fair shake it’s unsurprising. I know you’re generous, too, so the graciousness you’ve displayed so far with giving him repeated opportunity to fix his behavior is unsurprising. Well, you’ve actually given him a lot of slack.

    I don’t dispute that you’ve the right (in the name of fairness) to squelch Mr. Essman. For everyone involved you probably should. I’m just pointing out that you can’t expect him to be reasonable. I wanted to tell you what the mechanisms were that caused him to be unreasonable.

    It’s difficult to navigate the emotions of other people (and ourselves, really), and rather than do that we set ground rules for behavior. Those ground rules feel pretty justified — requiring people to be reasonable and respectful — and they ultimately have good practical effect. I say employ them when you need to and when you can. Bear in mind that requiring reason and respect, or whichever Terms Of Use you choose, is only one way to facilitate discourse.

    We should note that there are situations in which we are not the power that has the ability to dictate the rules. I would caution against adopting a Terms Of Use mindset as a universal perspective on communication. “No, honey, we went out to dinner at least once this year and I refuse to discuss the matter until you refrain from hyperbolics.” “I’m sorry, sir, but if you cannot address me in a more respectful tone I will not even consider your demand for my wallet.” Terms Of Use help in certain scenarios, and hurt in others.

    Ban Mr. Essman if you so feel. He’s disrespectful, he persistently misunderstands you though you’ve made yourself clear, and he is not contributing positively to the discussion such that it benefits anyone except himself. He’s primarily driven by need to vent his feelings, and reason is only being dragged in to serve that end. When the driving force is feelings rather than an urge to uncover truth and logic, you don’t get rationality, you get rationalization. Banning Mr. Essman would help your blog’s quality, with benefit to you and your readership at large. It will not, however, help your relationship with Mr. Essman.

    If you want to help your relationship with Mr. Essman, validate his feelings. Positively acknowledge whatever degree of truth there is to the things he says about a) how the police are valuable, b) how his gratitude makes sense. He wants to be reasonable, but he can’t if you contradict these things.

  13. RickH on July 1st, 2009 9:42 pm

    Now here’s some irony for you: When I was talking to a couple of lawyer friends about this article earlier today, we pulled it up on the Internet.

    Imagine my surprise at seeing a typographical error — or was it merely proof of my point? — when I saw these words:

    ….some of whom were citizens of the United States.

    That was supposed to say, “of Germany.”

    But, as I noted, the similarities are great. While writing, I confused the two!

  14. Nothing to See | RickHorowitz on October 22nd, 2009 6:58 am

    [...] Alliance kindly asked permission to reprint in their paper. (I can’t remember if it was this one, or this one, or some other [...]

  15. How Police States Are Born | Probable Cause on December 18th, 2009 5:38 pm

    [...] states, as I’ve said before, don’t spring into existence fully-formed, as Athena did from the forehead of [...]

  16. The Obligatory End-of-Year Post | Probable Cause on December 31st, 2009 4:31 pm

    [...] Just try to argue a suppression motion in a California court today!  Want to know what the new rules are relating to search and seizure?  Read this and this. [...]

  17. regina m martinez on March 20th, 2011 3:38 pm

    hello my son wasa a victume twice buy 9 to 10 boy jumping him only two got him on 3-4-11 also vidoing it and put on u tube . school and ploice took there time thatthis boy p,lanned another attack on my 16 yrs old son got info on witch way he walk and again beat my son again ib was at hospital this my child got two stiches on eye lid and bloody eye .the police say because my son had to aggree to fight again becausev there was no way out both boy planned it so now one get arrested for this why is this happening there blaming my son to like hell get arrest to for this if i keep on ,were is justes in hate crimes not even school will help me and these kid are at my sons school waiting to beat him first time two block then two block from home they planned thios to each time even vido tape it both time a put it u tube it so clear these boys planned it is it couse some are wight kids some were 17 to 19 yrs old my sons only 16 and the victume why dont they care

  18. Jess Loflin on November 21st, 2011 10:05 am

    It would be absolutely amazing if you added a share button on your site for social networking such as Facebook. This information would be great to share with people.

    Thanks!!
    -Jess

  19. Godwin's Constitution | RHDefense: The Law Office of Rick Horowitz on January 2nd, 2012 11:38 am

    [...] alluded to above, even Nazi Germany didn’t spring fully-armored from the brow of Zeus. There really was a time in Germany, before the reign of the Nazis, in which [...]

  20. Beyond This Point | RHDefense: The Law Office of Rick Horowitz on May 14th, 2012 6:11 pm

    [...] different from the United States today: As alluded to above, even Nazi Germany didn’t spring fully-armored from the brow of Zeus. There really was a time in Germany, before the reign of the Nazis, in [...]

  21. kenny on July 19th, 2012 6:18 pm

    Wow! I’ve had police harass me in Columbus, Ohio. Definitely, the inner city sections of Columbus I’d consider a “police state”.

  22. The police state | On the Mark on December 23rd, 2012 9:59 am

    [...] It was a constitutionally-based democracy with clearly-delineated, constitutionally-protected rights such as freedom of the press and requirements of habeas corpus.  Hitler eventually did away with these rights — legally — “for national security purposes” and special courts were created outside the normal system for the treatment of the nation’s enemies, some of whom were citizens of the United States.  Only government-approved attorneys were allowed and the hearings were secret, again, for reasons of “national security.”  Sound familiar yet? ~ Rick Horowitz [...]

Leave a Reply




CommentLuv badge