McAdam Smashers, Pt. 1: Attack on a Citizen

[XLFD]

A recent event that happened with police in Missouri is very illustrative of our local case involving Joseph McAdam, which happened back in 2009 and is scheduled to go into binding arbitration in November.  It starts off a bit differently; for some reason, police go into a woman's rest room to collar a woman.  From the video we are not told why the male police officers went into the lady's room in the first place, whether they had a warrant, or what the woman was charged with, even though she regularly implores them to tell her.  Her language is a bit saucy (the "Obama-loving turds" is a classic line), but she's going through a traumatic event, and such speech she uses is protected by the First Amendment.   

 

 

But as you'll note, the one policeman pushes back, harasses, and arrests the filmographer of this piece whose only crime was to try and record the incident taking place and reminding the police of his rights and their dereliction of their duties. 

Joseph McAdam, who has sued the City of Ludington, the County of Mason, and three police officers for an incident that happened in 2009 has a few similarities, and whereas I have tried to get the patrol car tape with no success from the County Sheriff early this year, I was able to get a transcript of that recording just recently. 

 

The following record places a time on the events, audio, and dispatch communications of that fateful night when Joseph McAdams was assaulted by three of our local law enforcement officers for a specious and mutable charge that I still can't figure out.  But here is what happened, see what you think:

 

 

The facts one can see from this transcript seem to point to an all out assault by three officers on a citizen without any reason behind it.  Joe McAdam had started to record a traffic stop where his mother was being processed.  It made the officer uncomfortable, so he called for backup, which is fine.  But Officer York, who didn't take part in the violence that happened that night, set the table with bad communications between himself and Joe, and the incoming trio of officers.  He encouraged Warmuskerken to initiate physical contact with Joe for simply recording the incident, told the other two that Joe "needed" t get out of there. 

 

There is no inkling of criminal or intimidating behavior by McAdam, plenty by the officers; recording a traffic stop is within the law, the LPD patrol car was doing that very thing, hence the transcript.  Police officers just can't detain or attack any citizen because they are filming them or not listening to unlawful commands.  If the tape's transcripts of the event is not enough, the various depositions (interviews by attorneys under oath) of the officers involved that night are very revealing as to their frame of mind at the time, and two years afterward when the depositions were taken.  Without comment I provide one of those here, that of Deputy Oscar Davila about the events when he got there, without any extra commentary other than to look at it very critically and determine whether there was any good reason for arresting McAdam and whether there was any reason for the blind-sided takedown and five taser shots he received that night on the street while walking away from the incident.

 

   

If you do feel that these police actions were unwarranted and excessively brutal, please let your elected representatives know, because they have tried their darnedest to keep you out of the know on what happened that night.  No Mason County Commissioners, Ludington City Councilors or other officials, have expressed any disapproval of this assaultive behavior, which is a crime in itself. 

When I have brought this brutal incident up at the Ludington City Council meetings, Mayor John Henderson has, however, went out of his way to commend the attackers and elevate them to rarified status.  He knows exactly what happened, but his loyalty is not to the people, just like the Mason County Sheriff's Office and Ludington Police Department has shown themselves to be with their complicity to this crime. 

[AQUAMAN]

Methinks the transcript alone proves out the innocence of Joe, and the willing complicity and arrogance/illegal acts of Local officers that were involved. And you haven't even touched on the tasering of Joe at the Hospital, handcuffed to a bed, completely incapable of making any serious physical threat to anyone else at that time. This is CUT AND DRIED Imho. No Question relative to making for status of arbitration, it's a N0-Brainer whom should win, but, will he? Or Will True Justice be Trampled on again?

[XLFD]

Under the binding arbitration process held away from Mason County, I am fairly sure that McAdam will win. The major question is, how much?  The secondary question is whether the cops involved, all now working for the MCSO and held in high regard by the sheriff, will suffer any negative publicity or discipline.  Law enforcement officers that make false arrests, initiate violent unnecessary attacks, and maliciously prosecute victims of their assaults have no room in my community to protect (their asses) and serve (up violent attacks).

[XLFD]

I think it's getting worse because of a combination of factors, here is a few I can think of just off the top of my head that have pushed the shield into more of a sword:

1)  Increased militarization of police equipment and police actions, decrease of training in basic law and de-escalating situations. 

2)  'Risk Management Insurance' takes out oversight by governing agencies, takes away individual cop liability for actions.

3)  Change in police culture away from protecting rights and people and service to more into enforcing and prosecuting an ever-increasing amount of laws.

4)  Penalizing 'good' cop behavior and incentivizing 'bad' cop behavior by departments/governing bodies.

All are prevalent in most locations.

[AQUAMAN]

The main problem is that "some" cities will condone and accept police brutality to prove an important but moot point. That being that "locals are subject to knowing better"! And that "they must be punished beyond belief, because we are all targets of simple ignorance". We must all now know the laws, even if they are new, and stringently obey, no matter the legalities of them. And of course, if ye shall be in the wrong place in the wrong time, even though legal, for an innocent bystander, ye must obey, yest ye be punished, beyond reasonableness, and what is publicly acceptable. Remember also, these same public officials must all stand up against the public, in any shape, form, or way, just to prove they are always right, never wrong, because the "code" preserves that they all stick together, no matter the truth.

[AQUAMAN]

Tallman Lake has lots of swimmers itch streeter, good place for you to swim imho. Quit Scratching the face of truths!

[Willy]

Another excellent job of reporting the facts X. Most people don't realize that police brutality was very common years ago before the Miranda ruling. Suspects were basically tortured and beaten by police in order to get them to talk. People were held for days without sleep so they would sign anything, even confessions of crimes they did not commit just so they could be released, so they thought.

[XLFD]

That is very true, and there has been a cyclical nature of police behavior through the years, and I believe it directly corresponds with the good or bad behavior of the government body that has control over them.

[Willy]

In the report stated that Joe was being disorderly by standing in the middle of the road and walking backwards thus causing a hazardous condition to himself and motorists. If that's the case then what charges should be brought against the officers for tackling him in the middle of the road an thus putting themselves and Joe in a hazardous situation. 4 people on the ground is more hazardous than 1 person standing.

[XLFD]

Davila's testimony conflicts itself pretty dramatically.  He says Joe continued walking (backed up by video and other depositions), but claims he's disorderly for standing in the middle of the road for less than a second.  Of course, your statement is totally correct that the officers became part of the 'disorderly conduct' by conducting a one-sided brawl.