FREE MITCHELL CROOKS NOW

I believe that there is something fishy about the arrest and detaining of Mitchell Crooks. Will he be the first white guy to have his civil liberties erroded? Do we know where he is and in what condition his body is in? I, for one, will be watching...;
--David Williams

Bullshit.

The prosecution up there charged him under 667.5 (amongst other things), and he's got to ride that beef. It has nothing to do with the tape. If the cops wanted to railroad him, they could have (667.5 him again, plus a year, plus a year, all perfectly allowable enhancements, and probably, his previous prior - which we've heard nothing about - is a qualified strike).

If the Mitchell case was stone-cold harassment, you'd know it. The prosecution made no moves in either direction for that (which could easily have been done). Crooks is lucky he shot that tape, actually. Under any other circumstances, they would have booked his ass (using the FTA as a quasi-escape, which they could have, especially since he already received his sentence).

Crooks is merely riding a few beefs he previously plea-bargained for; that's it.

he should be granted immunity for having the courage to oppose a brutal asshole pig cop. the AP stories show that he was beaten while in custody. is that also "no big deal"? he should be set free and we will campaign for him to be set free. get off indymedia, cop

That merely shows what an idiot you are.

I am - as measurements go - the furthest thing from a cop. You, on the other hand, are a fool.

Immunity? From what? He plead out on those charges. Have you any idea what 667.5 could have gotten him if he hadn't? Before you open your mouth again (or scrawl any more allegations about people being cops), first do your research, and start here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

667.5 could have bought him a great deal of time. Crooks is simply too stupid to know what's good for him. He obtains a viable property (whilst awol on a sentence that he plea-bargained for), and walks into a radio station? Or over to CNN? What kind of an idiot is he? Of all the dimes he could have thrown into a payphone, the one he didn't (but should have) was to call Steve Yagman's offices. If Yagman were his front man, he wouldn't be gaffled up now, would he?

But of all you characters shrieking about the case, I think few have ever had "real" trouble with the police, faced a prison sentence, bargained a case out, or anything even remotely similar. So now, I'm gonna tell you (as someone who spent nearly half his life as a *successful* career criminal):

Crooks is an idiot; a stone-cold, knucklehead. No one already under sentence (with an FTA, which in California, prosecutors can characterize as escape under the doctrine that once sentenced, you're under CDC's custody, even if you're not physically available) makes direct press contact - ever.

If they wanted to fuck Crooks, they would have. His hopping around in the back seat of that car could easily be artistically crafted as a resisting arrest - and with that, prosecutors could have 667.5'd his ass again - this time, amounting to five years PLUS his controlling case, PLUS a year for a "former" or "prior" incarceration (or even three years, depending on what his abstract of judgement reports on the original sentencing, and maybe even imposition of his original sentence on that case, which was likely suspended).

And if, by chance, Crooks' former case (the nature of which hasn't been published, but for which he already had probation, or, in other words, an additional beef effectively riding together but silent with the other charges) was a felony that California characterizes as "violent" or "serious", prosecutors could have asked for (and would very likely have received) the statutory "twice the penalty," which the California Court of Appeals just ruled to be (at maximum) one-third of the mid-term on each such felony - stacked bow-legged.

In other words, Mr. Anarchy, if prosecutors really wanted to fuck this idiot, he'd now have an additional twelve years to do (and on nine of that, he'd have to do 85% of it, or roughly, get somewhere on the order of about 54 days a year off on good time), plus 8 months on each of the three remaining years (given the statutory penalty of 16, 2, or 3 on theft). Or, in layman's terms, Crooks would be sitting there with about 14 years on his sentence, 8.5 of which, he'd have to do you.

But they didn't do that. Instead, they gaffled his ass up and delivered him to do his time - in this case, what amounts to around eight months or so. And you say he should be freed? If I were him, I'd count myself very lucky, for the cops and prosecutors treaded exceedingly gingerly. They had, at their disposal, the power to ruin this yahoo's life, and they took a pass on it.

For your sake, I sincerely hope you never do anything that could bring you prison time. Because, faced with a real indictment, you wouldn't know which way to turn or what to do. And when they sentenced you, you'd sit there, dumbfounded, wondering where the collective was, and why its members didn't save you. In prison, there's always a few fellahs like you, walking around the yard, talking nonsense about how they're "political prisoners" or how the evil "Man" railroaded them. Real criminals goof on such fellahs for amusement's sake.

Here's a shocker for you: Crooks argued, bargain, and accepted a plea-bargain. Short of Gray Davis pardoning him today, CDC couldn't let him go even if it wanted to (and not by or due to any act or ommission on the government's part). Crooks is there because he called the shots on that bargain, he accepted it, and he inked it. I'm saying I know lots of fellahs who FTA'd (myself included, and on a huge case involving a continuing criminal enterprise still running whilst on bail - a separate felony or series of them), and this is the first time (in 24 years) I've ever seen the California authorities not book a dude's ass for taking flight. Effectively, the treated it as if Crooks *had* showed up for surrender to do his time, as if nothing at all happened.

No matter what your uninformed brain may tell you (and no matter how much "social justice" you think CA has depried Crooks of) I'm telling you straight: he's damn lucky - lucky he has that tape and lucky that press were on his ass when the cops took him. Because if either of those contigencies didn't come down precisely as they did, he'd be in a world of hurt right now.

I almost forget your question. Yeah, it's no big deal. He's walking, no one reports any broken bones, so far as I can tell.

Where do you so-called radicals come from, anyway? Here's a dose of reality for you: when you're a criminal, if, through ill-luck, your enemies, compatriots, or the cops harm you (anything short of long hospitalization or near-death), that's something - a risk - you take as an occupational hazard. Real police brutality is rare. I've seen it, but its bloody rare.

I once saw a group of hacks beat the living shit out of a norteno who couldn't speak English and therefore, couldn't pipe up with his number when called. They worked on this dude for about five minutes, which, in that situation, is a lifetime. I saw it, the convicts saw it, other hacks saw it...nobody said a word. I've also seen crooked cops release convicts with long stretches onto a tier long enough to rat-pack (and kill) some idiot who wanted to rat those crooked cops off (and those convicts killed that fool, sure as the sun did rise the next morning). Finally, I've seen cops break the law to secure an indictment - they did it a few times in my case. Did I cry about it? No. It is what it is. You're either a criminal or not. That's the life. If you don't like it, go find a nice nine-to-five and shut the fuck up.

Whilst fighting multiple indictments, I was briefly transferred from federal to county custody to answer some chickshit charges in LA courts. They sent me to Wayside. There, a LASD guard kicked my ass but good for refusing to throw in on a party.

I was the trustee who ran the Hole, and they had some Negro back there mouthing off. Even back then, I was a stone-cold racist, but I still wouldn't take any part in beating this black man in an environment in which he couldn't defend himself. (That kind of activity is just chickenshit). Anyway, I heard them beating his ass and I saw them rushing his cell ten-deep, and this motherfucker cop comes to me and says...and these were his exact words:

"Hey, Royere..you wanna get in a few good shots? There's no camera back here. We can beat this nigger like the day's long."

I waved him off.

I never even saw the soul brother's face (I just heard his screams) while he was in the shit, but I had occassion to meet him later. I didn't even know who he was, but he knew me. There wasn't any love fest there; we merely each had a cigarrette, and talked, and he thanked me for not joining in, because, as he said "I know you're one of them motherfucking nazis and shit, and they was balling, and you coulda had some fun. I recognize." He later returned the favor.

About 18 hours later - right after count - that cop came for me. At Wayside, sally ports are metal from the ground to approximately 3.8 feet high (or many mens' waistline). After that, they're glass (appx. 1-inch thick) to the ceiling. The door that encloses this square is also glass, and entire module structure is set on corners of the building, like diamonds set, each in their respective corner, connected by rivets and heavy-gauge steel slats. The cop took me into the port and there, began working me over. Inmates (for, in Wayside, men are inmates, not convicts, chiefly) rushed the door to watch the fun. And although I was a nazi, that black fellah did me the turn he felt I was entitled to. He screamed as loud as he could (over the other voices cheering and laughing) that I shouldn't let the cop drop me (because, if he did, no one would be able to see me on the ground, and there, kicking me with those boots, the cop could conceivably kill me). So, I pressed myself into the farthest corner, offering the crowd maximum visibility, and I waited. And let me just tell you what: that cop's face was covered in sweat when he finished, and his shirt was soaked, but I was still a standing (or rather, a leaning) motherfucker. When done, the cop tossed me back into the dorm, and I was free to go and sleep. Some of my brothers dragged me to bed, and that was that.

Never, not once, not from that day to this (and that was almost 14 years ago) did I think of reporting that cop or saying so much as a word about it (to anyone that had any power to do anything about it). In that world, you don't tell on cops and they don't tell on you, and when you get to prison (and I mean *real* prison, not some candy-ass place with ice cream on the Level 1 Yard), you better remember that. Because, in there, their lives (cops) depend on yours and vice-versa. If you see a cop beat some man down and speak about it, that's it, man. You're ass-out, for everything from commisary to the library to getting new laundry (and if you're not careful, they might get rid of you). On the other hand, if you're silent about it (even when the SSU, or internal police that police cops in prison, jack you up), you're in like Flynn. In the presence of crooked cops who know you're also crooked, you can commit the most heinous crimes and never hear a word about it (as they, likewise, expect from you). Those screws make 21,000.00 early on (to hell with the benefits). They have to find creative ways to make a living, and sometimes, they need help. There's a few convicts reading this now (ready to laugh) who probably buried their share of office furniture in empty fields with a bulldozer, or smuggled out several tons of coffee, or whatever their hacks were up to at the time. A prison is a goldmine, full stop.

But crooked cops are everywhere. Some beat you - some of them do it just to see if you'll rat 'em off. I've seen it happen and it happened to me personally. These fellahs had a gambling operation. I was positioned across from it, running the shop that sent inmates out to pick up trash on pretty California beaches. These fools knew I could see their traffic, so they made their standard inquiry. They want to know if you'll keep your mouth shut. I did, and in the process, earned a few juice cards. (A "juice card" represents power, the ability to call in a favor from dirty or even, on occassion, clean cops).

That's how being a criminal really works. Everything demands silence. When something comes down, there isn't any screaming, yelling, or loud threats beforehand. Instead, the usual, normal yard, dorm, cell, or tier rhythm changes ever-so-slightly. You can sense it rather than hear it. And then, someone gets hit. No noise, but for the rushing of clothing and boots. And that's that.

Those fellahs didn't work on Crooks - not to any appreciable degree worth yelping about, anyway. I've seen real police brutality, and Crooks' case ain't it. The Booty Master up at Pelican Bay constituted police brutality. State-sponsored gladiator games constitute police brutality. Getting knocked around a couple times isn't police brutality; it's standard operational procedure. When some foolio anger the cops enough that they come in with bats and shields, drive everyone outside in the rain or snow, and make everyone lay face down for three hours, you know who catches hell? Not the cops...the idiot who fronted everyone off and pissed off the hacks, that's who catches hell. All the rest (real convicts) lay there, face down, talking about their boat on the outside, some flower they bedded down, what they're gonna do when they get out, and so forth - as if it were a nice, sunny day (except for an occassional "these cold-hearted motherfuckers...they got us out here like this. Damn. So, Billy - tell me again about that ballet dancer chick.")

So forgive me if I don't feel alarmed about Crooks' particular situation. From where I'm standing, he's on fat status and green valleys.

oh so you think you're a tough guy and so nothing matters huh? well while you are "career criminal"ing it some of us are criminaling it for a different reason, which is, to fuck these pigs once and for all. obviously you dont see this as a goal which is why you are squealing like one of those pigs. the fact is, if someone has the guts to turn in a rodney king tape, they deserve immunity for whatever piss-ass dui shit they have going. you disagree, because you dont give a fuck about getting these pigs and stopping the occupation of our cities by these paramilitaries. so really, get some consciousness and when you do come back and talk your shit. otherwise you're just another sucka who has been hoodwinked by the greatest scam to come along in human history.

William Randolph Royere III, your attempt to lecture people on the "real world" is a little strange. What exactly is your connection to this mysterious world of crime that you think you know so much about and assume everyone here knows so little about. I’m sure you’ve had one or two life interactions with the real world (like when you are buying a bag from your dealer), but I really doubt you have any clue how the real world works. What exactly do you do for a living?

"Real police brutality is rare"

I’m not sure where you live but police brutality seems pretty commonplace everywhere I've lived (and it ranges from daily harassment to killing people).

"I once saw a group of hacks beat the living shit out of a norteno who couldn't speak English ...Did I cry about it? No. It is what it is. You're either a criminal or not"

Who exactly are the criminals in that situation? What exactly were you doing hanging out with a bunch of hacks who were beating the "living shit" out of a guy? Although, I guess I’m one to talk; the last time I saw someone beating the living shit out of a cop it gave me a strange sense of inner peace. It’s harder to get away with that, but in that case one can really say they got what they deserved.

Of course there are much worse cases than the cops digging up something on a man who made them look bad, but its like defending a whistle blower. Lets say my political cause is pollution. The factory up the road is releasing toxic chemicals into a stream that goes by a local elementary school. Now lets say an employee at this company releases documents that make it easy to prove this and as a result the company does everything in its power to make the life of this man a living hell. Defending the whistle blower makes it more likely that incidents will be reported in the future even if it's not my real cause.

Many people have things that can be dug up on them. Considering that the man who filmed the beating wasn’t already in jail, I’m guessing that the arrest was selective enforcement. Of course if everything the press is saying about the charges against him are true (and that’s a big IF), he would have faced similar danger if he had done anything that would have made the police pay attention to him (like getting pulled over for speeding etc…). But unlike his situation if he had been caught on any other charge, he is now in a situation where the police will put all their energy into making sure he pays (to set an example for anyone else who exposes police brutality). I doubt he will get beat up too badly in the next half year, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was "accidentally" killed once the news story blows over.

Spare me.

Crooks is lucky and he knows it. I'll relate it one more time: you're either a criminal or not. If not, great. If you are, however, you accept your lot, no matter what that is.

That is the price you pay.

While others slave away for someone (and clockwatch), you get to do whatever you want, go wherever you want, and (unless you're not a successful criminal) spend money like water.

Go ask a career criminal and see what he says. Police brutality in the Crooks case? Please. Give me a break.

"you're either a criminal or not"

Well if you sat around watching someone get the shit beat out of them and did nothing I see YOU as a criminal. Hell, as you said people are either good or bad, so since you didnt do anything you are obviously part of the problem.

I can tell you one thing, when a cop gets shot you don't hear me shedding any tears. And you wonder why so few people cooperate when an officer ends up dead on the street?

People like you make me sick.

Selective enforcement?

Are you smoking crack?

Those warrants would have taken him down in any state, at any time. Crooks couldn't even withstand a traffic stop (SMODS would have ferreted him out in less than 5 seconds; they didn't even need a CLETS/CBI). He'd already plead out and received his sentence. How is that selective enforcement? If Crooks was stupid enough to surface under those condtions, he's gotta pay the penalty, period.

And sidenote: I know very well how the "real" world works, and apparently, you radicals don't.

There's nothing even remotely unusual about what happened to Crooks. He's an idiot, full stop. Would you, with a beef you have to ride on your back, raise your head under those circumstances? Why? Yagman could have gotten him more money, hid his identity, and prevented the authorities from bagging him. All it would have taken was a telephone call.

Selective enforcement. That's a good one. Hell, by that reasoning, Theodore Bundy was unjustly picked up in Florida and Colorado. When a man has a sentencing hanging and he's on the street, he'd better be prepared, at any moment, to go down. And if he doesn't have someone inside DMV (or another, similar source), he's cruising for trouble 24/7. The cops pick up a known felon who skipped on a sentence. How is that selective enforcement? They'd probably never have found him if he wasn't screaming loudly "Here I am! I'm over here!"

"Would you, with a beef you have to ride on your back, raise your head under those circumstances? "

Crooks is a brave man. Would you do an act of good even if it meant that you might face risk?

Crooks is a hero and we should do all we can to make sure they dont make an example of him.

That depends on the circumstances. It depends on what the cop's character was. Some cops are so dirty, they're not worth the concern. And then again, many, many cops are good, decent people.

As for watching someone get beat up and not doing anything about it, heh. Yeah, you're right. That's criminal. So is shooting people, large-scale larceny, covering up serious and violent crimes others commit, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and the myriad of other things the government, at one time or another, alleged I did or was involved in (though, I went down only once, I did beat many, many cases).

So what? Scenario: you're part of a crew and one gets busted. He bails, but agrees to cooperate with the police. Another crew member (not you) blows his brains out before he can testify. Quick: what do you do? Answer: nothing. You keep right on transacting business, and never say a word. That's crime. And that, Einstein, is why people in crime give cops more latitutde than radicals do. Because people in crime know that what they do is wrong, what the cops do is frequently wrong but often right, and that's life.

But to hate all cops (for the actions of a few) when most - I say, most - view their mission as just what it should be, that's a little skewed for me. That is, even though many cops (local, state, federal, otherwise) bent the rules to take me down, I understand that. I don't hate 'em; that's their job. It's my fault, not theirs, that someone was left to speak and put me behind bars. I harbor no animosity toward cops in general, and I have no reason, and more than 85% of those arrested have no reason, either.

We pay cops to police our streets. That's a dangerous job because many folks are disposed to killing cops, especially now, when more than 40 states have "three-strikes" laws, so why not? (At least, that's what they think). I wouldn't be a cop for the world (and I have no special love for them), but I respect cops all the same. Because some of the fellahs on "our" side of the fence belong behind bars, and that's a fact.

Come on William. Just because you are involved with white-collar crime does not make you the expert on anything. Those of us who work on police brutality campaigns, or work with groups like Copwatch, understand that your shallow attempt at whitewashing what happened here is pathetic.

You are also talking to people who live in and around Oakland, where the Riders trial is currently going on and dozens of officers are implicated in gang activity, frame-ups, drug dealing, etc.

Before that, we had COINTELPRO in this area, doing the same thing -- frameups, political persecution, etc.

We just saw the FBI found guilty for framing and attacking environmental activists here.

No one buys your shit, or your tired "he got off easy" BS. We want Mitchell Crooks set free, and he should be. In addition, Jeremy Morse should find himself in the unemployment line soon. Period.

As for all other cops, if they are too cowardly or too complicit to turn in the really corrupt cops, then they are just that -- complicit. There is one good cop I know about, and it is the rookie who turned in the Oakland Riders even when they threatened him with death.

To what_would_Jesus_do:

You're not listening. I'm telling you that they expressly DIDN'T make an example of Crooks. If you know what they could have done, you'd realize that. "Artful" lawyering could have buried Crooks. Both DAs swore off and let it ride, as is (even though CPC carries an additional penalty for failing to show to serve your sentence).

Trust me; I've seen fellahs railroaded (plenty of them, incuding one scenario where the cops dropped a man's prints on a bank counter in a bank he never visited), and in this case, they expressly backed off from Crooks because of press coverage. I realize that y'all are outraged, but the point I'm making is this: what happened to Crooks is nothing compared to what they would have done had CA been looking the other way.

And if this is your understanding of police misconduct, do something other than be a radical. Because, if the heat ever really gets a hard-on for you, you're not prepared for it - guaranteed. I've seen plenty of police misconduct, and the Crooks case doesn't remotely qualify.

anti-cop: now, you're talking. You wanna talk Oakland, fine. But that and this are two totally different things. It's not possible to "release" Crooks, and you know it. How can he obtain a release? He plead on those cases before this incident. Come on, be reasonable.

Sure. Many such "bad" cases do exist. I'm not saying that at all. I personally lost a good friend to what amounted to an assasination. This fellow indirectly caused the death of a drug enforcement agent's daugher. They sent someone in, set up a deal, and blew his brains out. At a distance of twenty feet, in the dark, at night, through dense fog, through a frosted windshield, they claimed this idiot was weilding a gun with their "buyer" inside the car. He never carried firearms, though, because of ex-felon-with-a-gun. So, they assassinated him. And I've seen a few dozen other such cases over, say, twenty years. So, yes...this type of thing exists, no question. But the Crooks case ain't it.

Sidenote: don't know what kind of white-collar crime you've been involved in, but it has a pretty high death rate when you reach into the higher numbers. USC 1962 now classifies even lesser (not predicate) white-collar offenses as requisites, thus destroying what was once a wondeful business. Those fellahs are capping one another, perhaps, only one-third as often as those in high-end narcotics cases. And with Bush's people coming on so fucking heavy behind this so-called terrorism war, that's bound to increase.

Of course the man who video taped that beating isn't going to be beat up that bad yet. It would be too obvious.

He needs to be defended since he will probably be set up for something worse, killed in jail "by accident" etc..
He took a risk to help out a kid who was being hurt. He put himself at risk to protect someone. That deserves our respect.

William Randolph Royere III, so you were a big time drug dealer? What are you doing out if things are that bad?

I was never, ever a drug dealer.

Look, I can see you're all concerned (and clearly don't understand what the real implications could have been or that what did happen was, essentially, nothing). That's fine. But there's no parallel at all between the Crooks issue and what happened in Oakland (or in the CRASH units down here).

Truly "bad" cops do exist, and when they come, that is cause for concern,and I readily admit that. For those such cases, I'm quick to support efforts to get 'em off the street. But this is not that. And no, no one will harm Crooks now - he already did the damage. There's no point and too many heads looking in his direction, period. He'll do his little eight months or whatever it is and hit the talk show circuit, and that's that.

But here's something to consider: people who have been victims of actual police brutality are where you should concentrate your efforts. No one can get Crooks released from his original commitment. He's simply gotta do the time.

Since you commented on why someone would "want to be a radical", I'll give you a brief definition of what "radical" REALLY means being that you don't already know, apparently.

so...why would I want to be a radical? read the definitions to find out.

Random House Dictionary's version:
Radical:
1. of or pertaining to the roots or origins; fundamental or basic.
2. favoring drastic political or social changes.
3. a person who holds unconventional principles.

you want to get REAL radical? well, this is about the most "radical" thing a european american can say: "since we've robbed the american indians their land and culture, we should give them control over the nation and repay them for decimating their lives."

our government's worst fear.

"people who have been victims of actual police brutality are where you should concentrate your efforts"

Why are YOU so concerned that nobody defend him? Seems like you have some agenda and I really doubt it has to do with YOU caring about police brutality.

If anything this suggests there is something being hidden and we should focus on this more...

ClassWar: what? establishing for them a specially protected area of organized crime (in which the leaders live in $7 million homes) isn't enough compensation?

Don't blame European Americans at this stage; blame American Indians who sold their own for a piece of the action. That's about as "radical" as that situation really is. Spare me the racial guilt bullshit; it slides right off my back.

Business has no color but green, and that's a cold, harsh fact. And whether it's Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky or Bill Pierce and his Jew publisher, it's all the same. Money in this country is green, and so are the lights if you have it.

well it's that precise mentality that drives so many to BECOME radical in the first place.

you have no soul.

Jesus.

First, I'm a shill for the cops, then I'm a penny-ante white collar criminal, then I'm a drug dealer, then I'm an instrument of COINTELPRO, then I'm "the evil, motherfucking Honkey who kept down the Indians," and now, I'm someone who's interested in discouraging "defense" of Crooks.

You characters are a kick.

I'm none of those things. I'm just someone who knows what would have happened to Crooks if folks hadn't been looking his way. He did the deeds, plead the bargain, and accepted the sentence, and now, he's gotta serve it. That's all there is to the story. As far as I can tell, Crooks is a standard issue White Boy, which means he's one of mine, and yeah, it's a bummer he's gaffled up. But his management of the situation was bad, the cops treated him with kid gloves (compared to what could have happened), and nothing but time will release him.

All the other mud slung right, left, and center can't change simple facts. It is what it is. And it's a little grating to hear folks screaming that Crooks is a victim. He's a thief who went on the lam on a beef, saw something wrong happen, filmed it, and got gaffled up. No conspiracy in that. His first stop should have been Steve Yagman's office, but it wasn't.

That's it.

Look at the statements made by William Randolph Royere III above. They are a little weird and his earlier posts are also strange.

Why would someone be this obsessed about making sure nobody focuses on the man who videotaped the beating?

He is obsessed with organized crime and seems to really like it in some of his other posts (see http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/06/134048_comment.php#134056). From the statements above we can see anti-Semetism and he is also a racist (http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/06/133771_comment.php#133780).

Probably just some wanabe mobster who couldn't get a job as a cop (since the personality profile is exactly that of a cop), but the focus on this particular case is interesting.

And now, I'm a wannabe mobster.

You folks just simply won't accept facts: Crooks had a sentence hanging over him. Who, under those circumstances, would loudly point to his locale? If "social justice" was his chief aim, he could have used a lawfirm as his face. Because he didn't, he's where he is now. The sky isn't falling, he isn't being crucified, and law enforcement and the judiciary took the minimum action against him (when many other options were available).

Go do what anticop purports to do, and save someone who really needs it. Crooks is fine, and he'll be fine.

Don't forget that racist label (which is true enough).

But it still doesn't change the case's facts. You cannot reasonably object to law enforcement returning Crooks to jail to serve time for a crime he committed and admitted, and for which he agreed to go to prison.

This is not injustice (and plenty of cases of real injustice exist).

"If "social justice" was his chief aim, he could have used a lawfirm as his face. "

Yes, he should have released the tape anonymously and he would still be free now. But, that has little to do with the motive which made him come forward with the tape. He should be defended for having done the right thing even if he could have done it in a smarter fashion.

I hope your right that Crooks will get out of jail, go on talk show circuits and promote the idea of filming police activity. But, I don't think the world works that way. The public remembers things for a few weeks and then forgets. Whatever happened to George Halliday?

Finally, a reasonable voice.

That's precisely right. And I do hope Crooks does his time and has no problems along the way. (I'd like to say I know that for certain, but I don't; it looks that way right now, and the tape is already out, so it should work out just so, but one never knows).

People around this joint make out like I've got something against Crooks or people standing up for him. I don't. It's a fairly chickenshit thing, too, what the cops down here did - but when you give them that opportunity, they'll take it. You gotta know that.

But folks throwing all sorts of labels on me for stating the obvious is silly. As though I somehow think it's fine for cops to routinely beat people. That's not my position at all, and no one - no one - ever bothered to ask (or make observations about) what I think of the truly central issue, which is the kid Crooks filmed.

It's an automatic assumption that if someone is a racialist (racist, nazi, ethno-centrist, etc) that they support police brutality. How does that get entrenched in dogma? I, more than anyone on this board, know what the new COINTELPRO's criteria is, and newsflash: those boys intend to target racialists every bit as hard as they will the people here, especially if you're an environmentalist ("eco-terrorist"), a women's rights advocate ("feminazi"), an anti-war protester or working wage advocate ("commie"), a trade protectionist or anti-globalist ("anarchist"), an ethno-centrist ("nazi"), a Pagan ("witch," "New Ager," or "anti-Judeo-Christian"), a militia member ("a gun nut"), or any other "troublemaker" that DOJ arbitrarily labels as such. Ashcroft can't even stand to have The Spirit of Justice's breasts uncovered, and anything the Church Committee hearings accomplished (and Executive Orders that followed) is now gone.

I ought to know, because, to answer an earlier question, what I *now* do for a living is armor private enterprises against electronic eavesdropping. I'm no friend to law enforcement particularly. In reality, the extreme reverse (but in a lawful way these days, as I'm an old man).

But looking at Crooks' situation objectively, he could have and should have done anything than what he did. It would be better, true, if he didn't have a sentence hanging out there (and then, the authorities couldn't have done anything to him), but he did. All I'm saying is, he's gotta ride that sentence no matter what (and if I were him, on my release, I'd spend a full ten years nice and quiet, grab that Certificate of Rehabilitation, and move on. Because, if he doesn't, he might see some action later on, and that, I'll readily admit).

31 comments ought to do the trick, Herr ClassWar, no?

cheers.

May the Fates preserve Mr. Crooks and keep him safe.

wrriii

No, nessie. That's funny, but not at all the purpose of the exercise.

One might think that the media attention will make it so the arrest of Crooks is not only legit (are these new fabricated charges?) but his treatment will be lenient. After all, with this much focus on the case how could the police make this up or act out of line against him in jail?

That, unfortunately is why the police can and will act out of line.

Crooks gets roughed up in jail and the press reports minor bruises (perhaps they are made up or perhaps tehy are much worse). Activists act a little disturbed and post things to this board (and nobody has even thought of organizing any real protests around this so far). What is the public reaction? This thread shows exactly what the problem is. Since the police can't be stupid enough to be mistreating Crooks in this public of a case, how could they do anything bad to him? So, no matter how the cops act it can be assumed that (aside from some crazy radicals) nobody will suspect that the cops are taking revenge.

Are these charges even real? Robbing one's parents can sound either really bad (a junkie so desperate he robbed even his own poor mother) or pretty normal (what teenager hasn’t borrowed something unasked from their parents). People on this thread are making Crooks out to be a carrier criminal who is being let off lightly but the actual charges sound a little strange.

Every boy growing up wants to be a mobster. Every old man wants to pretend he's lived the life. But this guy doesn’t really seem real. Unless this guy is now just putting up aluminum siding, he is lying. A business may hire an exhacker to do a job protecting against electronic eavesdropping but normally they wont hire a convicted felon (especially one who was taken down by the Feds and might use the job to leave back doors open). A white color criminal may come out on the gruff side if they did serve real time but this guy tries to suggest he was that way before he went in. He also hates ARA type groups and knows more than a normal amount about them. Knowing all this, why is is he so focused on make it clear that this Crooks guy is not seen as a victim.

“All these groups (ARA, SPLC, OPP, and so on) are political absurdities.”

“White activists need to gear up and make a real push, for their opposition [on the ground, anyway] consists of crack smokers, bums, and marginalized undesirables who couldn't get a cup of coffee with five bucks and a smile. ”

"Sure, it's fashionable to slam fellahs like Gotti. Why not? They're in no position to retort. But Gotti lived his life how he wanted to"

"So now, I'm gonna tell you (as someone who spent nearly half his life as a *successful* career criminal):"

"You're either a criminal or not. That's the life. If you don't like it, go find a nice nine-to-five and shut the fuck up. "

"even though many cops (local, state, federal, otherwise) bent the rules to take me down, I understand that"

"I was never, ever a drug dealer."

" what I *now* do for a living is armor private enterprises against electronic eavesdropping. I'm no friend to law enforcement particularly"

strange: you haven't heard? DCI waivers are no longer required (merely a DDO ok, and sometimes, not even that). Gotta keep abreast of those regs.

Isn't it true that Crooks was arrested for an outstanding warrant for an unrelated incident and not for shooting the videotape?? Just because he did a did a good deed by catching the abuse on video and letting people know, doesn't mean he should no longer be held responsible for other actions.

we must rise above but do it with peace