The 2020 George Floyd/BLM/Police Brutality Protests Discussion Thread



White cops in Tallahassee are found planting evidence in the car of a black motorist.
White cops in Tallahassee are found planting evidence in the car of a black motorist.
The cop who was charged was a relative rookie and forgot to turn his camera off otherwise they might never have been caught. How many other times have they got away with fabricating evidence against innocent people?

The state seemed to be trying its durnedest to throw out the subsequent inculpatory body cam footage. And yet, people on this forum and thread say there's no such thing as systemic racism.
Last edited:
When Claremont Police Officer Jon Stone was fired in 2006, before his union fought and altered his official exit, the Police Standards and Training Council was informed about Stone’s alleged rape and murder threats, and his inappropriate relationship with a teen girl.

But the state agency that licenses police officers passed on holding Stone to account, according to the records obtained by

“They had everything, what they chose to do with it is their decision,” former Claremont Police Chief Alex Scott said.

Stone fought for more than three and a half years to keep his personnel records sealed after this reporter filed a right-to-know request in 2020. Part of Stone’s ultimately unsuccessful legal argument is that the records should have been destroyed after the Claremont Police Union negotiated an exit for the troubled officer that kept his alleged misdeeds quiet.

Stone, now a Republican state Representative, allegedly threatened to kill Scott, rape Scott’s wife and children, and go on a shooting spree inside the Claremont Police station. He also allegedly made threats against Captain Mark Chase, but details on those threats have been redacted.

The impetus for Stone’s unhinged and violent rhetoric was the internal investigation into his inappropriate relationship with a teen girl, according to the internal affairs reports.

Stone was fired from the department in March of 2006, soon after the threat investigation wrapped, and Scott filed paperwork with the Police Standards and Training Council (PSTC,) a Form B, informing the agency of the termination as required under New Hampshire law. The Form B does not provide details, but the agency asked Scott for more information. Scott sent PSTC copies of the internal affairs reports.

“I believe you will agree the rule seems to implicate Rule 402.02 (a) 5,” Scott wrote in May of 2006 when he sent the reports.

That administrative rule requires the Council to revoke a police officer’s certification on the grounds the officer lacks moral character, even if a settlement between the officer and his department had been negotiated. But the Council never acted on the reports, and Stone was eventually allowed to surrender his certification.

Stone appealed his termination through his union, and after mediation came to an agreement to leave the department. At the time, the Claremont Police Union representative was Officer Andrew O’Hearne. Like Stone, O’Hearne entered politics after leaving the department, winning elected office to the City Council and the House of Representatives as a Democrat.

Scott told on Monday that Stone’s internal affairs reports were sent to Sullivan County Attorney Marc Hathaway as well, but Stone was never prosecuted. Hathaway was not available for comment on Monday.

Scott declined to answer questions about Stone’s threats to him and his family.

Stone’s appeal stretched out through 2006 and into 2007, when Scott again contacted the Council and informed it of the agreement.

“As a result, the City has agreed to, in effect, turn back the clock and allow Stone to resign prior to any findings being entered by the City with respect to (the) internal affairs investigations,” Scott wrote in May of 2007.

Scott’s 2007 letter to the Council came with a new Form B noting Stone left his job as a result of a negotiated settlement, replacing the 2006 Form B. Scott asked the Council to disregard the internal affairs reports as part of the union agreement.

On Monday, House Democratic Leader Matt Wilhelm, D-Manchester, called for Stone being removed from the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

“Revelations regarding Representative Jon Stone’s on-the-job behavior as a police officer are beyond disturbing,” Wilhelm said.

“At minimum, Representative Stone must be immediately removed from the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. Whether this behavior occurred last week, last year, or last decade, it is clearly beyond the pale for an elected official.”

Wilhelm said he expressed his opinion to Republican House Speaker Sherman Packard. “I sincerely hope he takes immediate action to address this black eye on the New Hampshire House of Representatives,” Wilhelm said.

Current PSTC Executive Director John Scippa, who took over the agency in 2020, said a case like Stone’s could not happen today, union or no union.

“If there’s allegations (of officer misconduct) that need to be reported, they would go before us at the Conduct Review Committee,” Scippa said.

Under the law, which was changed in 2022, all allegations of officer misconduct go to the Conduct Review Committee for review. If the Committee, made up of three civilian members and four law enforcement members, finds the allegations credible the case is then sent to the full Council for a public hearing. So far, four cases out of about 120 have been deemed credible and referred from the Committee to the full Council. Though, Scippa said the Council has yet to schedule those hearings.

Stone’s ability to walk away from the allegations shows more needs to be done to hold bad cops to account, according to Amanda Grady Sexton with the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.

“Allegations of domestic violence, sexual assault, inappropriate relationships, child abuse, or threats of violence by a member of law enforcement must be fully investigated by an independent investigator. If there is evidence that a crime has been committed, the officer should be prosecuted just like anyone without a badge would be. We shouldn’t have situations where serious crimes are alleged, and the officer is allowed to negotiate a resignation in exchange for no prosecution. If we don’t hold people accountable when they abuse their positions of power, we should expect that they will continue to exploit vulnerable people in their next job,” Grady Sexton told

Groups like the Conduct Review Committee and Police Standards and Training need to have experts on abuse and those who advocate for victims when they craft policies dealing with police misconduct, she said. And, police departments need to make sure they have healthy internal cultures where abuse and threats are reported and properly handled.

“Leadership in every department needs to create a culture where their employees and the public will feel comfortable quickly reporting misconduct – without fear of retribution or harm. If multiple staff within a department are aware of a problem and haven’t reported it until asked, there may be a larger issue within the department which needs to be addressed,” Grady Sexton said.
This is fun.


Apparently Stone, a "normal" person, is all in on Trump.

Last edited:

This is fun.


Apparently Stone, a "normal" person, is all in on Trump.

"Normal" person: "Give him a break. Representatives do things like this every day."



Edited to add:


Colin Booth is the Communications Director at the New Hampshire Democratic party.


And they were covered up for 18 years. It's amazing what redcaps will excuse if it's on their side while accusing the other of pedophilia.
Last edited:


I have a few bones to pick with that article. There are statements in it like “The problem is the ex-boyfriend’s not the one who shot the boy; it’s the cop,”. Are we to presume that if a violent ex boyfriend shot the boy that she'd lose custody? That doesn't seem right either.

The woman appears to be a domestic abuse victim. When the boy calls the police the police shoot the boy. Now she's in danger of losing custody because her ex-boyfriend is abusive and a cop was trigger happy. The only people in this story who do not appear to be guilty of any crimes are the mother (abuse victim) and the boy. And the only people that seem to be at risk of suffering any consequences are the mother and the boy. I don't pretend to know everything about how to handle domestic abuse and women who are either unwilling or too afraid to press charges, but this doesn't seem to be the way.
Last edited:
Username doesn't check out as Kansas police lieutenant David Justice is arrested in connection to crimes including aggravated indecent liberties with a child, indecent solicitation of a child, and promoting obscenity to a minor.
Last edited:
Also Pennsylvania.

I have a few bones to pick with that article. There are statements in it like “The problem is the ex-boyfriend’s not the one who shot the boy; it’s the cop,”. Are we to presume that if a violent ex boyfriend shot the boy that she'd lose custody? That doesn't seem right either.

The woman appears to be a domestic abuse victim. When the boy calls the police the police shoot the boy. Now she's in danger of losing custody because her ex-boyfriend is abusive and a cop was trigger happy. The only people in this story who do not appear to be guilty of any crimes are the mother (abuse victim) and the boy. And the only people that seem to be at risk of suffering any consequences are the mother and the boy. I don't pretend to know everything about how to handle domestic abuse and women who are either unwilling or too afraid to press charges, but this doesn't seem to be the way.
Reason did a good treatment on this.
The "Zombification" of Qualified Immunity? - CATO at Liberty
“I have a theory: Qualified immunity has already been bitten by one of the walkers in the Walking Dead, and it’s in the zombification process.”

So said David French on last week’s episode of The Dispatch’s Advisory Opinions podcast while discussing a recent Fifth Circuit decision denying qualified immunity to a pair of Houston police officers in an utterly bizarre false‐arrest case. Though he doesn’t elaborate, the idea seems to be that qualified immunity’s vital essence has been drained over the years, leaving the dead‐on‐its‐feet doctrine to stagger around menacing victims of government misconduct and searching for brains to eat.

It’s a whimsical image, and I hope David’s right. But here’s an even simpler take: judicial enthusiasm for qualified immunity is starting to wain because not only is it a legal, practical, and moral failure that flies in the face of bedrock conservative convictions about limited government and personal responsibility, it’s an embarrassment to boot—as this latest Fifth Circuit case vividly illustrates. Here are the facts in a nutshell.

The plaintiff, whom we’ll call GS for “Good Samaritan,” is an Uber driver and former police officer who sees a pickup truck careening across I‑610 in Houston in the wee hours of the morning, and suspects, correctly, that the driver is stinking drunk. Worried the other motorist might kill someone, GS calls 911, manages to get the truck stopped and performs a lawful citizen’s arrest when the driver tries to flee on foot across the highway. Two officers arrive at the scene and conduct separate interviews of GS and DD (“Drunk Driver”), while also administering a field sobriety test to DD, which he fails spectacularly.

The two officers then release both men, allowing the obviously intoxicated DD to drive home in his pickup truck. Two days later, the officers, Michael Garcia and Joshua Few, swear out a thoroughly rotten probable‐cause affidavit in which they credit DD’s incoherent and contradiction‐riddled story that GS impersonated a police officer during the encounter on the highway. Warrant in hand, they then go to GS’s house at 3 a.m., wake him up with a ruse, and arrest him for felony impersonation of a police officer—for which he is duly charged and prosecuted until the charges are quietly dropped a few months later.

GS sues a passel of defendants, including officers Garcia and Few, who promptly—and predictably (“How are we supposed to know you can’t make bogus arrests based on fraudulent warrant applications?”) assert qualified immunity. The district court rejects that defense, and, in a surprise twist, the Fifth Circuit (which is hands down the most QI‐friendly court in the country) not only affirms the denial of qualified immunity but does so with an uncharacteristic tone of dismay and disdain for the officers’ unseemly attempt to avoid accountability for their blatant misconduct.

Indeed, the panel begins the opinion with a snarky parenthetical, noting that it affirms the district court’s denial of qualified immunity “(Obviously”), and concludes with a scathing critique of the officers and their counsel that is honestly a bit difficult to process for anyone familiar with the Fifth Circuit’s work in this area:
It is unclear which part of this case is more amazing: (1) That officers refused to charge a severely intoxicated driver and instead brought felony charges against the Good Samaritan who intervened to protect Houstonians; or (2) that the City of Houston continues to defend its officers’ conduct. Either way, the officers’ qualified immunity is denied, and the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.
As noted, the panel’s indignant tone is striking, particularly in light of the extraordinary largesse routinely shown to members of law enforcement by the Fifth Circuit, including granting qualified immunity to cops who deliberately tased a gasoline‐soaked man, burning him to death in front of his wife and son, and to guards who kept a prisoner in a frigid open sewer of a prison cell for nearly a week. (Notably, the grant of qualified immunity in the latter case was so egregious that the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit without briefing or argument. Cato filed its famous cross‐ideological amicus brief in support of that result.)

Where on earth could officers Garcia and Few and their lawyers have gotten the idea that even patently absurd assertions of qualified immunity in defense of breathtakingly unprofessional behavior by law enforcement might find receptive ears on the Fifth Circuit? It boggles the mind. (Not.)

So. What if anything does the Fifth Circuit’s remarkable volte‐face in this recent case tell us about the status of qualified immunity: Has it really joined the ranks of the walking dead, “[like] some ghoul in a late‐night horror movie”?

Unfortunately not. Despite constantly mounting evidence of qualified immunity’s utter jurisprudential illegitimacy—including recent scholarship that indicates the as‐enacted (but subsequently bowdlerized) text of § 1983 explicitly rejected background immunity doctrines of any kind—and a growing chorus of academic and judicial critics, qualified immunity continues to fulfill its mission of letting rights‐violating government officials off the hook for their misconduct and ensuring they never have to justify themselves to a jury of their fellow citizens.

But here’s the thing: Even though qualified immunity hasn’t been formally overruled or dialed back, one gets the distinct impression that it has fallen into disfavor among its berobed friends—that it has come to resemble not a zombie so much as the drunken guest at a party whose initially amusing antics are now causing the hosts to blush and wish they had never invited him to the party. If so, that would be progress. And if judges of the Fifth Circuit and other courts express contempt for government lawyers whose unseemly requests for qualified immunity underscore what a garbage policy it has always been—well, that too is progress.

Congress or the Supreme Court should formally rid us of this unjust, unlawful, and immoral doctrine. (Obviously.) And the more well‐deserved scorn we heap upon it now, the sooner that day may come. (Hint, hint.)
In an unrelated-but-for-the-subject-matter interview, the author of the above piece highlights just how egregious the doctrine is and he does so simply by accurately explaining what it does.

It's--it's bad. So who supports it? Cops, obviously.
Qualified immunity should remain as a just and reasonable protection.
That which has never existed as a just and reasonable protection cannot remain as a just and reasonable protection.
Within hours after Thomas Perez Jr. called police to report his father missing, he found himself in a tiny interrogation room confronted by Fontana detectives determined to extract a confession that he killed his dad.

Perez had told police that his father, 71-year-old Thomas Perez Sr., went out for a walk with the family dog at about 10 p.m. on Aug. 7, 2018. The dog returned within minutes without Perez’s father. Investigators didn’t believe his story, and over the next 17 hours they grilled him to try to get to the “truth.”

According to court records, detectives told Perez that his father was dead, that they had recovered his body and it now “wore a toe tag at the morgue.” They said they had evidence that Perez killed his father and that he should just admit it, records show.

Perez insisted he didn’t remember killing anyone, but detectives allegedly told him that the human mind often tries to suppress troubling memories.

At one point during the interrogation, the investigators even threatened to have his pet Labrador Retriever, Margosha, euthanized as a stray, and brought the dog into the room so he could say goodbye. “OK? Your dog’s now gone, forget about it,” said an investigator.

“How can you sit there, how can you sit there and say you don’t know what happened, and your dog is sitting there looking at you, knowing that you killed your dad?” a detective said. “Look at your dog. She knows, because she was walking through all the blood.”

Finally, after curling up with the dog on the floor, Perez broke down and confessed. He said he had stabbed his father multiple times with a pair of scissors during an altercation in which his father hit Perez over the head with a beer bottle.

He was so distraught that he even tried to hang himself with the drawstring from his shorts after being left alone in the interrogation room. Perez was arrested, handcuffed and transported to a mental hospital for 72-hour observation.

But later that day, the truth derailed the detectives’ theory and their prized confession.

Perez’s father wasn’t dead — or even missing. Thomas Sr. was at Los Angeles International Airport waiting for a flight to see his daughter in Northern California. But police didn’t immediately tell Perez.

“Mentally torturing a false confession out of Tom Perez, concealing from him that his father was alive and well, and confining him in the psych ward because they made him suicidal, in my 40 years of suing the police I have never seen that level of deliberate cruelty by the police,” said Jerry Steering, Perez’s attorney in Newport Beach.

Steering filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court against the city of Fontana, alleging that police psychologically tortured Perez and coerced a false confession without first determining that the father had actually been slain. The suit was recently settled for nearly $900,000.

Perez agreed to the settlement rather than take the case to trial out of concern that a jury award could be overturned on appeal on grounds of qualified immunity for police. Generally, qualified immunity protects law enforcement officers unless they violate clearly established law arising from a case with nearly identical facts, according to the Legal Defense Fund.

Fontana police did not return an email seeking comment. Three of the involved officers remain employed with the department. One other officer has retired.

So how could this happen?

In court documents and depositions, police say they had reason to believe Perez was lying.

First, they noted he seemed “distracted” and “unconcerned” during the 911 call, according to court records. Officers responding to the call noted the father’s cellphone and wallet were still at the home, which was in disarray. Police saw the mess as a sign of a struggle, but Steering said Perez was renovating the house and had argued with his father about it.

Additionally, a police dog sniffed out the scent of a corpse in the father’s bedroom. And there were small blood stains in the house. Steering later would say the blood stains were caused by the father’s finger-prick diabetes tests.

Perez’s lawsuit claims detectives also refused for several hours to retrieve his medication for high blood pressure, asthma, depression and stress.

Perez became so distraught that he began pulling out his hair, hitting himself, making anguished noises and tearing off his shirt while police encouraged him to confess, according to a summary of the case written by U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee.

“He was sleep deprived, mentally ill and significantly undergoing symptoms of withdrawal from his psychiatric medications,” Gee wrote.

At one point during the interrogation, investigators drove Perez to get coffee and then to some housing tracts where he had been looking to buy. Detectives berated Perez, insisting he did not need his medication and that they knew he killed his father, according to the case summary.

“When can you take us to show us where Daddy is?” asked one of the investigators.

Later, during their interview, the detectives told Perez his father’s body actually had been found already.

Asked in a deposition about his line of questioning, one of the detectives said: “I believed at the time if we told him that we had located the body, then maybe he would give us more information about what had occurred.”

Police, in court records, insisted Perez was voluntarily undergoing questioning and was free to go at any time. However, in her case summary, Gee wrote that the “circumstances suggested to Perez that he was not free to leave.”

She also noted that there was “no legitimate government interest that would justify treating Perez in this manner while he was in medical distress.”

Perez’s nightmare ended shortly after police got a phone call from his sister, who said their father was alive and well. He had actually walked to the train station in Fontana and rode the line to Los Angeles County to visit a relative and then took a bus to visit a female friend, Steering said. Perez Sr. later went to the airport to await a flight to Oakland to visit his daughter.

Police picked up the father at the airport and brought him to the Fontana station.

But the investigation didn’t stop there. Detectives obtained a warrant to again search Perez’s house for evidence that he had assaulted an “unknown victim,” according to Gee’s summary.

It appears none was found.

Perez was not released until after the end of the three-day psychological observation period. He then retrieved his dog from Riverside County Animal Services, tracking her down through an implanted chip, Steering said.

While Gee concluded Fontana detectives had sufficient reason to believe an offense had been committed, she criticized officers for their interrogation tactics.

“A reasonable juror could conclude that the detectives inflicted unconstitutional psychological torture on Perez,” Gee wrote in her summary judgment. “Their tactics indisputably led to Perez’s subjective confusion and disorientation, to the point he falsely confessed to killing his father, and tried to take his own life.”
[EDIT] The town's mayor has since resigned over the incident.
Last edited:

Latest Posts