LAPD raided the offices of an attorney who is representing a BLM activist in her lawsuit against the cops. During the raid, the cops took pictures of documents that contained privileged information. The judge in the case ordered the cops to destroy the photos.

He didn’t go far enough. Behavior like this on the part of the police needs to be dealt with harshly. The judge should grant a directed verdict in favor of the BLM supporter. Any time a cop is caught using their powers to cheat in a case should result in an automatic loss for the cops.

Categories: Police State


Zarba · February 6, 2024 at 10:09 am

Agreed. How do you “destroy” digital photos that have been copied to multiple servers automatically?

While I have less than zero love for BLM, the attorney is supposed to be able to present his case in open court. There’s no way this can happen, now that the state’s attorneys have access to their files and documents.

This is no different than the Justice Dept. raiding Trump’s lawyers so they an intimidate them off the case.

    Divemedic · February 6, 2024 at 10:39 am

    What’s the difference between a light bulb and a pregnant woman?
    You can unscrew a light bulb.

    Once the cops have seen your privileged information, there is no way to unscrew yourself.

Carrie · February 6, 2024 at 10:56 am

I don’t know.
I understand your points. They are completely valid, sane, and clear-thinking, particularly Zarba’s point about a different scenario wherein rhe DoJ raids Orange Man’s home.
But I want to put another idea out there:
You all are thinking like the same, good, law-abiding huwhyte people that you are.
Why not instead support this action, and let it all burn down?
I mean: who the heck cares about a BLM activist? And I imagine the cops are not saints.
On this one (esp since it’s Califruitopia), I say: good for the cops. Let it all fall to pieces.
As Captain Capitalim says: “enjoy the decline”.
This couldn’t have happened to a nicer “defendant.”
Our job is merely to steer clear of LEOs.

    Divemedic · February 6, 2024 at 11:42 am

    Except if there is anything that we should have learned from the Patriot Act, it’s that whatever power your take for your side, you grant to your opponents.

      Wyowanderer · February 6, 2024 at 1:34 pm

      Exactly right.

Anonymous · February 6, 2024 at 11:23 am

“Harshly” means the police chain of command goes to prison for ten years for corruption. If they merely lose their case, it’s merely a cost of doing business.

WallPhone · February 6, 2024 at 11:47 am

Hey government–When you freely practice abuses of constitutional rights, you don’t get to be surprised when the Preamble to the Declaration is again viewed relevant.

You don’t win points with conservatives because you trampled a non-conservative. You simply didn’t count on conservatives having drawn the the actual battle lines between government and people.

Birdog357 · February 6, 2024 at 1:07 pm

I’m torn. There are no good guys in this story…

SoCoRuss · February 6, 2024 at 1:25 pm

I understand whats wrong about this on a constitutional level. But since there is no rule of law in the FUSA anymore, I actually think this is funny. Fuck their lawyer, he finally gets to experience what we do everyday.
So this lawyer was basically swatted by the cops. But they didn’t seen to send a tactical swat team to bust in like they do to the rest of us.
Why no SWAT team kicking doors like they do for us normal’s? Just because flash banging a lawyers child or killing a lawyer is double plus bad?

Want to bet kiddy porn majically pops up on his computer soon or a family member get charged with something bad?

    NA · February 7, 2024 at 5:13 pm

    Yup. If the ROL remained in effect, our host’s “I will defend your constitutional rights even as you seek to eliminate mine” argument is admirable.

    Because the ROL is no longer fully in effect thanks to BLM-defending attorneys who sought to eliminate the ROL… Well…

    At some point after a pattern of decades of work by the forces of evil to undermine the ROL, it becomes difficult to say “I will defend your constitutional rights even as you seek to eliminate mine.” Pick a side.

      Divemedic · February 7, 2024 at 7:10 pm

      Government must respect everyone’s rights equally. Individuals, on the other hand, do not. We as a people must DEMAND that this is so.

      It can’t be any other way, because the powers you seek to use against your opponents today will be used against you tomorrow.
      For more information, see the Patriot Act.

        NA · February 7, 2024 at 9:14 pm

        We agree on the goal in the end, once we get there: Government must respect everyone’s rights equally.

        Sadly it does not at the moment–the ROL is no longer fully in effect. We are living in Sam Francis’ anarcho-tyranny. Look at the violent illegals being released on the streets of NYC, while non-violent J6 protesters are political prisoners, Douglass Mackey is behind bars, and non-violent Christians are locked up for praying in front of abortion clinics.

        Our disagreement (to the extent we have one, which we may not) is not about the end goal. It is about the means to reach that goal given our current ROL-no-longer-fully-in-effect situation. Abiding by peacetime norms is a mistake in non-peacetime. Unilateral disarmament generally is not the best option.

        As you wrote last March, and I agree: “If you want a war, then I am not interested in being fair. I am interested in winning.”

          Divemedic · February 8, 2024 at 7:29 am

          I stand by that. I am interested in winning, not being fair. The government, however, cannot do that. The government cannot be allowed to pick sides, the only ending possible when the government is given the power to pick sides is not freedom, but tyranny.

Pietro Montana · February 6, 2024 at 9:40 pm

Leave no info for donut molester maggot minions of the state.
Never had sailfawn, media social school of fish hive mediocrity or extra big azz teevee wall and never will.
Once you reach bat guano level of RP McMurphy overstanding, the fuzz won’t mess with you.
Visions of pension go bye bye and no more bearclaws in their heads.

Chris · February 7, 2024 at 6:19 am

Sounds like they been taking lessons from ATF.

oldvet50 · February 7, 2024 at 8:23 am

I have never understood (nor agreed with) the “fruit of the poisonous tree” concept. I guess most people agree with it unless it affects them personally. Imagine that a murderous rapist of your young daughter got set free because the police acted wrongly. Now imagine that the government then put him in witness protection because he was also a drug cartel informant. IMHO, the only recourse in cases like police overreach is to fire them with prejudice (never to hold a badge again – anywhere) and imprison them if their actions would have resulted in jail time for ordinary citizens.

    Divemedic · February 7, 2024 at 9:17 am

    The problem is that evidence that is seen because an illegal search was carried out can’t be unseen. The old saying of “you can’t unring a bell” and all of that. OF course it sucks to have a guilty man go free, but we can’t let subjective, emotional decisions cloud our judgement when we are trying to set up a system for laws that will govern all of us, or we wind up with abusive cops.

    Which is where we are now. Cops violate the rights of people on a continual basis, and this is because they don’t have any consequences for screwing up. I agree that cops should lose their jobs if they are found to be abusing their authority.

Elrod · February 7, 2024 at 3:37 pm

“I agree that cops should lose their jobs if they are found to be abusing their authority.”

Absolutely. And if they crossed a legal or Constitutional line “under authority” after they lose their jobs the next stop – after booking – should be a courtroom to see how much jail time they’ve earned.

Until the Shiny Badge People suffer the consequences of their actions those actions will continue.

Comments are closed.