Supes votes in police apoligist committee

Peace be with you

I have no particular love for the idealized ‘worker’ as he appears in the bourgeois Communist’s mind, but when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on.” George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia

Today Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to create a “Citizens’ Law Enforcement Liaison Committee.” What a Citizens’ Law Enforcement Liaison Committee is is a seven member committee to white wash and justify every instant of police abuse by the Humboldt County Sheriff’s office. The three supes who voted for this frivolous idea are Jimmy Smith, Bonney Neely, and Mark Lovelace.

The committee, which was endorsed by both the Sheriff, Gary Phelps, and the Humboldt County Human Rights Commission, has absolutely no authority to even investigate, let alone make real changes to, the complaints they will be required to receive. The most they would be able to do is recommend that the Sheriff allow an “auditor” to investigate the complaint. The Sheriff has to approve the request.

This appears to be heavily supported by the Human Rights Commission. It seems to me if a toothless bureaucracy would be able to stop the local police abuse, and cover ups, then the HRC should of stopped it years ago. The truth is that the HRC is really a front group for the current status quo, and likewise so will the new CLELC.

The ugly truth of the matter is that the cops are out of the people’s control, and fortifying that position with this new quisling committee. Police are the only profession in the US allowed to lie, steal, and use indiscriminate violence against the general population. Police use “force” (another word for violence), in one study, 1 out every 6 arrests. This translate to half a million cases of abuse a year. Kristian Williams points out, in his book “Our Enemies in Blue,” that “[b]y emphasizing the idea that most officers rarely use force, they demonstrate that brutality is individually rare, while obscuring the fact that it is collectively common” (emphasizes in original).

Williams makes a very good comparison between the rhetoric used by abusive men to justify violence against the women in their lives, and the rhetoric used by police and their supporters when justifying police abuse. Denial – “the cops didn’t do anything wrong.” Minimization – “the cops use force rarely.” Blame – “they wouldn’t of been beat if they weren’t criminals.” Redefinition – “the suspect was resisting arrest.” Unintentionally – “the cops were defending themselves.” Its over now – “we didn’t do anything wrong, but we’ve changed our policies.” It’s only a few – “it was just a few bad apples.” Counterattack – “I promise when the autopsy is complete he/she will had been on drugs.” Competing victimization – “your just a ‘cop-hater.'” The hero defense – “cops risk their lives everyday to insure peace.”

More cops die from car wrecks every year then are murdered. In the year 2000 135 cops died in the line of duty. 51 were murdered, and 84 died from car crashes. There were 5,915 work related deaths in 2000. Police on duty death rate is 12.1 people per 100,000. Compare that with loggers whose death rate is 122.1 persons per 100,000, or miners with a rate of 30.0, or truck drivers at 27.6, or farmers at 20.9. Even lawn care people die on the job at a rate of 14.9 per 100,000. Cops are fully aware of the risks, and paid for that risk, yet have a safer job then the gardener. We never seem to have all the pomp and circumstance marches for the truck drivers.

The whole purpose of this smoke and mirrors bullshit is to attempt to quell dissent about local police abuses. The only thing that will end this type of crap and get our elected officials to take real steps to rein in our abusers is public outrage. I doubt this will fool very many of the real people in our community.

The sad truth is that the police have the ability to abuse because those in power want it that way. The supes, local city councils, DAs, Grand Juries all refrain from using their power to stop police abuse. To quote Kristian once last time, “the real limits on police power are established not by statutes and regulations – since no rule is self-enforcing – but by their leadership and, indirectly, by the balance of power in society.”

Take the power back.

love eternal


18 Responses to “Supes votes in police apoligist committee”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    Are they any good local policemen?

  2. Anonymous Says:


  3. Love and Onness Says:

    A Police Free society isn’t going to happen any time soon, but the Humboldt cops are notorious for abuses. Humboldt has not had oversight on almost anything, and that’s created “Cops Gone Wild”. Humboldt’s government moves glacially, closing the door after the horse escapes, doing too little too late, and stronger, broader measures are needed. This does appear toothless, more is needed, but probably won’t be provided, until thing spin out of control again.

    The silver lining in this is that the powers that be, after numerous attempts to move Humboldt into the 1950’s, has proven itself incapable of dealing with real world problems. With the worldwide Depression, and California’s bankrupcy in particular, they’ll have to release their choke hold.

    In addition voters, have a chance to purge politicians like never before. Conservatism is now leaderless and in disrepute. Even if you don’t think voting helps, it will give the sleezocrats one more thing to subvert in a situation where there is a firestorm of problems that are biting them back.

  4. theplazoid Says:

    Peace be with you Anonymous

    In answer to your question, no. Police”men” are “Law Enforcers.” Since laws are one persons attempt at controlling another person they are by default bias. The usual way these things work is the rich insist laws be produced to stop the poor from “bothering” them. This reduces cops (both sexes) to corporate goons. Again and again we watch as the rich ignore the laws with immunity. And as long as this is the case cops are on the wrong side of justice – in other words they are unjust. How can a profession that is unjust ever be called “good.”

    love eternal

  5. dat Says:

    Why do you say “Peace be with you” when you mean Fuck you for disagreeing with my?

  6. theplazoid Says:

    Peace be with you

    I assume your the above anonymous. I answered your question. “There are no stupid questions . . .” I answered it honestly with no “fuck you” feelings one way or another. I’m sure you took it as a fuck you because one can’t really “disagree with a question.” One can only disagree with the answer.

    Of course if you meant your question to really be a rhetorical statement, then I missed that. I still would of decided to answer it the way I did even if your were just spewing rhetoric bullshit.

    As far as why I offer you my peace and the shake the dust from my feet when you don’t accept it is just the way I roll. I wish you could/would find peace in your heart, but you wont and “[t]ruly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah.”

    love eternal

  7. SoHumNoob Says:


    Have you ever though about a weekly show on the community access channel?


  8. SoHumNoob Says:

    Or sacrificing your beard and rough presentation and running for a sups position.

    You know killing the monster from within?

    We need an honest caring person in there, seems the current sups are doing the will of
    their masters. Where is the working and hurting persons representative?

    I remember a Christian friend of mine saying, “They (sinners) are always coming into our church service and disrupting it.”



    PS – Are you staying dry and warm?

  9. transient Says:

    to dat:

    since tad is too kind-hearted or principled or spiritual or whatever to just say fuck you, you fucking such-and-such, I will search deep within myself and….FUCK YOU! I’m sick of the stupid shit that stupidity stupids are always drizzling out of their mouth-holes.

    So now you can feel free to accuse me of “hating” or whatever. I feel that hatred is the appropriate response to boot-licking fascist-enablers.

    As for changing the system from within…if that worked then everything would be fine by now.

  10. theplazoid Says:

    Peace be with you SoHum and transient

    I agree with transient about “changing the system from within.” If I who stand outside the system joined the system wouldn’t the system be one person bigger? Besides I’ve seen many a good person join the system only to end up a sell out.

    Maybe a show if I could find a crew.

    Transient, I thought that question deserved an answer. Are there any “good cops?” It is like a 1940 German asking if there are any good Nazis. Though a simple fuck you might make one feel better, an answer will educate those who read the thread later.

    love eternal

  11. fig Says:

    excellent post.

    – if cop says the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning,
    firs verify, then act. NO KIDDING.

    – dirty cops with “police powers” is as close as you can
    get to be able to act with utter impunity in human society.
    watch out, stay away from these diseased cops. mentally diseased.
    WITH health , 2010 !!

  12. SoHumNoob Says:

    I think the police maybe ignorant and brain washed.
    They feel deep inside they are doing something good.

    The good cops quit before they commit suicide and join LEAP.

    I feel sorry for the ones that become zealots of what think is a holy cause.



  13. transient Says:

    There sure is such a thing as a good cop…but i’m not going to say it here.

    For an analysis on the role of police check out this link:

    For a look at the alternatives that can replace policing, see this link:
    (i believe that it is similar to the last chapter of Our Enemies In Blue)

    The problem with “good cops” is that they don’t significantly oppose the bad cops. If they do, they get Serpico-ed. If they try to ride the fence, they end up bolstering the power of the bad cops because a citizen has no way of knowing when they see a cop if they are about to interact with officer friendly or if they’re about to get jacked up for nothing. Also, they probably enforce drug-laws, which are enforced in a racist manner, or just maintaining a presence, thus threatening the enforcement of any number of immoral or disproportionately laws.

    ok. too many words. bye now.

    All Cops Are Bad-apples

  14. transient Says:

    “Arcata Council to introduce unlawful panhandling ordinance”
    TS 11/30/2009

    Sounds like horseshit. If someone is not breaking any other laws, then they should not be specifically targeted by law enforcement for exercising their first amendment right to free speech by asking for money from those who have more than them. If they ARE breaking some other law, then there is no need for an ordinance against pan-handling specifically.

    The part about “traffic visibility triangle” or whatever sounds suspect as well. So, you can’t block traffic visibility if you are asking for money, but you CAN for other reasons? Like what, advertising for a business or something?

    The whole things sounds like classist business-owners are trying to run the city.

    Arcata City Council meeting

    Where: Council Chambers, Arcata City Hall, 736 F Street

    When: Wednesday, 6 p.m.

  15. theplazoid Says:

    Peace be with you transient

    I’ll start at the end an work forward.

    Last Wednesday at about 9:30ish they had the meeting.

    Of course the Arcata Stillman Council is “busyness-owner” controlled.

    Stillman and associates requested input from people who dislike beggars. Shane did a fairly good job at exposing their demented ploy at the meeting.

    Though they kept calling it a “anti-aggressive pan-handling ordinance,” a quick study realizes that their are many non-aggressive begging activities ourlawed by it.

    I was actually at that meeting and planned on writing about it as it’s next appearance approaches. Sorry I haven’t gotten to it yet.

    The packet is here.

    The video is here.

    Oh yeah, Susan Ornelas uses the exact same rhetoric as her hubby republican Bob.

    love eternal

  16. transient Says:

    oh yeah, LAST wednesday….i knew that…heh heh

  17. SoHumNoob Says:

    Doesn’t Jesus say in the sermon on the mount, Matthew Chapter 5 verse 42

    “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

    Emerson says,
    “And so the reliance on Property, including the reliance
    on governments which protect it, is the want of self-
    reliance. Men have looked away from themselves and at things
    so long that they have come to esteem the religious, learned
    and civil institutions as guards of property, and they
    deprecate assaults on these, because they feel them to be
    assaults on property. They measure their esteem of each other
    by what each has, and not by what each is. But a cultivated
    man becomes ashamed of his property, out of new respect for
    his nature.”

    Same tune different time.





    How many committees does a CEU process need?

    Answer = unknown!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s