Black Man who had the Audacity to Talk to His Chattanooga “Public Servant" as His Equal, Got Tased & Arrested by a Costumed White Public Ruler Who Didn’t Share Black Man’s Illusion - Suit Filed

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]

The moment he complied with the cop’s order to stop he was seized within the meaning of the so-called 4th amendment. WHAT CRIME WAS HE BEING DETAINED FOR? IN ORDER TO SEIZE OR BRIEFLY DETAIN THE COPS MUST HAVE REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION criminal activity IS afoot and the person stopped is involved in the activity. ALSO, The cop’s warrantless unwanted intrusion onto the black man’s property also violated ‘HIS RIGHTS.” SUCH RULES ARE AN ILLUSION TO BE ARGUED OVER AFTER-THE-FACT BY LAWYERS IN A RECONSTRUCTED REALITY IN A COURTROOM AND ONLY EXIST IN A “CONSENSUS REALITY.” IN ACTUAL REALITY “RIGHTS ARE MYTHS,” JUST WORDS ON PAPER. no Black OR LATINO motorist, juvenile, adult, professional of any kind—could make a compelling argument that constitutional rights afford any Black or Latino person MEANINGFUL protection from the COPS ON THE STREET IN THE REAL WORLD.     FUNKTIONARY    defines “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.” [   MORE   ]

The moment he complied with the cop’s order to stop he was seized within the meaning of the so-called 4th amendment. WHAT CRIME WAS HE BEING DETAINED FOR? IN ORDER TO SEIZE OR BRIEFLY DETAIN THE COPS MUST HAVE REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION criminal activity IS afoot and the person stopped is involved in the activity. ALSO, The cop’s warrantless unwanted intrusion onto the black man’s property also violated ‘HIS RIGHTS.” SUCH RULES ARE AN ILLUSION TO BE ARGUED OVER AFTER-THE-FACT BY LAWYERS IN A RECONSTRUCTED REALITY IN A COURTROOM AND ONLY EXIST IN A “CONSENSUS REALITY.” IN ACTUAL REALITY “RIGHTS ARE MYTHS,” JUST WORDS ON PAPER. no Black OR LATINO motorist, juvenile, adult, professional of any kind—could make a compelling argument that constitutional rights afford any Black or Latino person MEANINGFUL protection from the COPS ON THE STREET IN THE REAL WORLD.

FUNKTIONARY defines “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.” [MORE]

From [HERE] and [HERE] Nate Carter is bringing a $3 million lawsuit against the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, its police department, and the officer responsible for his tasing and wrongful arrest.

According to the complaint, the April 2018 incident began when police responded to a 911 call about a man threatening the caller with a gun. The caller described the suspect as a black man with short hair, who was heavy-set and wearing green and black pants.

The suspect had fled by the time police arrived. Instead, they saw Carter, who was wearing a purple t-shirt and black shorts. Officer Cody Thomas asked Carter to identify himself. Carter, who said he was checking his mail outside, responded that Thomas was not welcome to come to his house. The situation escalated with Thomas telling Carter, “How about you watch your mouth before your ass gets thrown in the back of my car.”

Thomas pulled out a Taser and threatened to shoot Carter’s “fucking dog,” which was barking in the front yard. Carter attempted to go into his house, at which point Thomas shot Carter in the back with his taser, causing him to fall on his front porch. Carter managed to make his way inside, and Thomas called for backup. Carter then re-emerged from his home with his family while several officers, including Thomas, pointed guns and tasers toward Carter, his family, and his dog. After the family was out of the way, the officers moved to arrest Carter.

Body camera footage shows Carter’s arrest

Thomas later claimed that Carter was standing in the street and “bolted” prior to the incident. He charged Carter with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Those charges were thrown out by a judge in November and Carter is now suing.

This is not the first incident involving Officer Thomas. In February 2018, Thomas and other officers entered the home of Dale Edmonds after a neighbor told emergency services that someone was sitting in a black vehicle in Edmonds’ driveway. The person in the vehicle was a Department of Child Services agent who was waiting while a second agent was meeting with Edmonds inside of the house. Though the agent explained to officers the purpose of their trip, Thomas and others entered the house through the backdoor without a warrant. The officers led Edmonds, his housemate, and the agent outside of the house at gunpoint, but not before Thomas “manhandled” Edmonds, who was recovering from a gunshot wound.

Robin Flores, an attorney and former police officer who works on police brutality cases, is representing Carter. Their suit argues that the city “has long-established patterns of overlooking or providing excuses and reasons to justify the misconduct of its officers.” Flores told Reason that the complaint highlights how the city fails to “discipline and supervise” officers. The complaint lists other reports of bad policing by Chattanooga police dating back to 2003, including excessive force, lingering investigations, domestic abuse, and sexual harassment.

Flores told Reason that the Supreme Court has ruled that the language Carter used during his arrest is a form of protected speech. In 1974, the court ruled against a Louisiana statute that criminalized the use of obscene language while an officer is performing their duties. Justices argued that the law was too broad to fit within the legal definition of “fighting words” and had the potential to be abused in instances lacking a valid reason for an arrest.

Though Thomas’ body camera was rolling during the incident, he turned his cruiser’s dash camera off in violation of the department’s policy. At one point, Thomas’ hand covers his body camera. The complaint argues that this was done either in an attempt to turn it off or conceal his interaction with Carter.

Flores says that the footage available in both Carter’s case and in the Edmonds case is “critical enough to bring a claim” against Thomas, the department, and the city. In other instances, footage has been enough to drop charges and reopen the cases of offending officers. He also mentions another case where he dismissed a suit after his client’s version of events did not match the camera footage. This, he says, also protects police officers.