From [HERE] and [HERE] Garfield Heights authorities agreed Wednesday to pay $80,000 to settle Robert Spencer’s federal civil rights lawsuit, which alleged First and Fourth Amendment police brutality violations and said police fabricated a story that he threatened officers, when he actually just laughed and insulted them.
According to Spencer’s attorneys, he was beaten and arrested in July 2017 after he laughed while Garfield Heights officers drove down his street.
The lawsuit claimed Spencer was arrested for “laughing while black.”
The settlement also requires the city to train its officers on the First Amendment and how it applies to their job, as well as on limitations on forced labor by inmates, according to a news release from Spencer’s lawyers at The Chandra Law Firm in Cleveland.
According to his attorneys, the officers confirmed their motivation on videotape at the police station. “All you had to do was shut the f*** up,” one officer reportedly said. “We weren’t even going to arrest you.”
They told Mr. Spencer that “saying stuff to us when we drive by” justified investigation, arrest, detention, beatings and prosecution, Spencer’s attorneys argued.
Robert Spencer, a resident of the inner-ring suburb, says officers Kenneth Falzini and David Simia approached him outside his home on Christine Avenue while he was around some neighborhood children, according to lawsuit filed Monday by attorneys Subodh Chandra and Patrick Kabat.
The officers told Spencer they heard someone threaten them. Spencer said he and the children were joking around, or "ranking," the lawsuit says. He told the officers he would rank them as well, according to the suit.
When Falzini asked for Spencer's identification, he told the officers to leave his property and insulted them. While Spencer never threatened the officers, he did call Falzini "Beavis & Butthead" and Simia "Elvis," according to the suit.
Those insults and others set off a series of events that led to Spencer's arrest, according to the suit. A Cuyahoga County jury in November acquitted Spencer of felony and misdemeanor charges.
The white officers claimed he threatened and shoved one of them and resisted arrest. However a jury did not find those allegations to be credible and acquitted him of the charges, including assault and aggravated menacing.
His lawsuit filed in July that he was never aggressive with the officers. A video shot by his girlfriend [see it below] contradicts statements officers made about Spencer’s arrest in their sworn police reports.
According to the lawsuit, Falzini asked for Spencer's ID and told Spencer he would go to jail if he didn't comply. Spencer replied: "Motherf----r, for what? I'm on private-ass property and you ain't got no reason to sit here and talk that bulls--t to me," according to the lawsuit.
Spencer did not threaten them, though, the lawsuit says.
"No reasonable officer would believe that 'ranking' police officers constitutes a true threat," according to the suit.
Once handcuffed and in the patrol car, Simia told Spencer "All you had to do was shut the f--k up. We weren't even going to arrest you," the suit states.
Spencer was in jail for three days before he posted bond. While in there, an unnamed female corrections officer forced him to clean his and other cells, according to the suit. He objected but says he relented after the officer threatened to use pepper spray on him. [MORE]
REALITY UNDERMINES BELIEF. In general, in the fake world created in courts judges have held higher expectations for police officers because they are trained to be more patient than the average person in the face of hostile words and to deal with unruly and uncooperative members of the public. The DC Court of Appeals stated, ‘A police officer is expected to have a greater tolerance for verbal assaults, . . . and because the police are especially trained to resist provocation, we expect them to remain peaceful in the face of verbal abuse that might provoke or offend the ordinary citizen.’ In re W.H.L., 743 A.2d 1226, 1228 (D.C. 2000). Such dicta is part of the vested interest’s Spectacle in the lex-icon for its believers and rule worshippers to indulge in. But reality, alarming as it is to our programmed minds - is much better.
Larken Rose states, “It is very telling that many modern “law enforcers” quickly become angry, even violent, when an average citizen simply speaks to the “officer” as an equal, instead of assuming the tone and demeanor of a subjugated underling. Again, this reaction is precisely the same – and has the same cause – as the reaction a slave master would have to an “uppity” slave speaking to him as an equal. There are plenty of examples. depicted in numerous police abuse videos on the internet, of supposed representatives of “authority” going into a rage and resorting to open violence, simply because someone they approached spoke to them as one adult would speak to another instead of speaking as a subject would speak to a master. The state mercenaries refer to this lack of groveling as someone having an “attitude.” In their eyes, someone treating them as mere mortals, as if they are on the same level as everyone else, amounts to showing disrespect for their alleged “authority.”
Similarly, anyone who does not consent to be detained, questioned, or searched by “officers of the law” is automatically perceived, by the mercenaries of the state, as some sort of troublemaker who has something to hide. Again, the real reason such lack of “cooperation” annoys authoritarian enforcers is because it amounts to people treating them as mere humans instead of treating them as superior beings, which is what they imagine themselves to be." [MORE]
Here, Black man, Robert Spencer, believed he was having an arms-length conversation and interaction with public servants - a talk with his equals who also work on his behalf. He also felt & believed he could clown around with them because his “rights” protected him from harm. He should now know that he is merely a subject who disturbed the peace of his masters and understand that authoritarians or public rulers, costumed or not, do not serve subjects unless they so desire. Rose states, ‘to expect the master to serve the slave - to expect power to be used solely for the benefit of the one being controlled, not the one in control - is ridiculous.’ Here, the white cops were offended that Spencer did not recognize their “authority” and extra-human status so they corrected him, teaching him and the amused audience of Black children watching, an obedience lesson. Maybe this woke him up. Dr. Blynd states, "people who are awake see cops as mercenary guards that remind us daily through acts of force, that we are simultaneously both enemies and slaves of the Corporate State - colonized, surveilled and patrolled by the desensitized and lobotomized drones of the colonizers." He further explains, “anyone who thinks that he or she is immune to the baseless destruction of his or her life by a "government" or corporation does live in a happy menagerie—enjoy your illusions." [MORE]. Beaten, falsely arrested, locked up for 3 days and maliciously prosecuted, Mr. Spencer should also overstand what Doc Blynd is talking about.
As far as Mr. Spencer’s 1st and 4th Amendment rights are concerned, where were “his rights” on the street? Perhaps your rights exist if the cops also share in your illusion that they do, but brazen cops so frequently abuse their power that no one—no Black motorist, no juvenile, no adult, no professional of any kind—could make a compelling argument that constitutional rights afford Black people any real protection from the state, - not on the street. Dr. Blynd states, "The child who is taught to believe the law will be his protection is the child who will become the victim of its own beliefs." "Unquestioned beliefs own you."
According to Dr. Blynd:
rights - fantasmatic or fictitious objects having no reality in actuality by those imagining as an identity being in possession of them. Rights are cultural gratuities perceived through various fantasy frames, recognized, and sometimes even created, by man's system of law to provide a modicum or pretense of civility under a system whereby their very undermining and violation is vouchsafed. Rights are merely rites unless you know how to assert and defend them in order to enjoy them. 2) things people are free to do whether they are able to or not. 3) conditions of existence required by hue-man's nature for their potential survival (primarily against the cartoon that kills, i.e., the wholly unconscionable entity called the "State"). It is a mistaken notion that rights are enjoyed by one at the expense of the many—that is the realm of privilege. Enjoyment of rights in a neo-imperialistic world controlled by Yurugu through the Greater System (Symbolic Order), paradoxically, entails not only a recognition of their inevitability but, equally, their impossibility. How can we be endowed with rights, or even know what rights are when they are based on binary considerations? Rights, as ontological ephemera, cannot be universally observed, recognized, realized or, enforced—and paradoxically, act also as its own eternal source for its assertion and vessel for its fulfillment in our imaginary enjoyment of them. While the law reads rights referentially, what is universally needed in the praxis of rights discourse today is a particular re-inscription, demystification or reontologising of rights (revivified and convivial) by the pan-gendered subject-citizen-decoder—taken symptomatically rather than seriously. Most people rarely experience the cognizance of being property of corporate fictions because as long as you don't violate the rules of society your real status as feudal-property-slave is no: involved or revealed. If there is no 'I,' to what and to whom do rights as objects accrue? Those who are confused by suffering (and the subject of same) require a re-onotoligisation of rights through the trajectory of meaning independent of their existence. Rights and even 'lefts' (i.e., what remains after all of our imaginary rights are traced to their inception as figment) for that matter, like good and evil, are human inventions which humans treat as non-human realities. While fantasy frames invent rights, romanticism reinvents them. Enjoy your symptoms and play with your syndrome—the symptom is the solution. Read carefulh the holding in the supreme Court case of U.S. v. Babcock. Rights are myths—obedience to servitude or jail is the reality. (See: Abilities, Bill of Rights, Monoright, Servitude, Fantasy, Jurisdiction, Human Resources, Citizenship, Frankenstein, Autonomy. Rule of Law, Surrogate Power, Indigenous Power, Yurugu, Jouissance, Privilege, Disobedience, Duty & Willpower)