I linked Massad Ayoob several months ago. I'd seen him thanks to a link from The Truth About Guns and thought he was a good read. I'm having second thoughts. His snarky post earlier this week about the conduct of the police in Deming New Mexico gave me serious pause. What happen, is to me, not a joking matter.
That the police were proven wrong in their suspicions is a matter of record. David Eckert was stopped for a supposed stop sign violation. In the course of the stop. he was detained, His vehicle and his person searched for drugs, culminating in a colonoscopy conducted on an expired warrant at a hospital outside the jurisdiction of the warrant.
I strongly expressed my opinion. "Mas, I know you can’t admit it, but you are wrong. The facts PROVE
beyond any shadow of doubt that you are wrong. NOTHING was found.
Previous cases were dropped. Why, we do not know. There is no credible
proof to back up the claim that he had previously done any such thing.
We are a nation of laws, and our court system requires proof. All the
evidence proves he had done nothing to deserve this.
1. The dog is not certified.
2. The warrant expired.
3. One hospital refused to participate. Possibly because they were the ones duped the first time.
4. This was not the first time this had happened.
This has a stink factor about it like a dead carp in the back seat. The
officers in question, right down to muttly, should all be kicked out of
He replied, "
Jeremy, if you were at all familiar with my work, you’d know that I do admit when I’m wrong.
And if you had spent 40-some years in the criminal justice system,
you would have learned to wait to get both sides before you judge. You
would have realized that you’re operating on only one side of the story.
And you would realize how little relevance the four points you raise
Judging by how many critics of cops are first-time posters here, and
how many don’t grasp how things really work, I think I’ll need to do a
follow-up blog post to explain.
In the meantime, JeremyR, feel free to peruse this blog for the
entries from July 13, 2013 to about two months later, and see how
another case turned out where folks jumped to conclusions after only
hearing from the plaintiff’s side."
He does admit when he is wrong, but only when a preponderance of evidence forces him to do so.
My next comment back to him generated a shit storm.
I posted "Mas, I don’t have forty years of “expertise” as a LEO. I served only
eight, and quit due to the lack of ethical standards which were placing
my own life at risk. Cops won’t back up a guy who won’t lie on the stand
to cover them. I’m not anti cop, I just don’t like bad ones.
As a municipal judge, I made USA today for dismissing two months worth
of tickets for a small town after the officer admitted on the stand that
he could not remember any of the defendants in the court room that day.
It was a small town, we had court once a month. Arraignments first,
followed by the trials from the previous months arraignments. In sworn
testimony, the officer stated his inability to recognize the defendant,
then added, that he did not recognize any one who was there.
After that statement, the city attorney asked for a brief recess, exited
the building with the officer and stepped around back to talk. They
chose for that location a point directly beneath the open window
adjacent to my chair. The lawyer told the officer, “If you can’t
remember, then lie”.
When they reentered the court room, I tossed all the cases, then
admonished the liar about what I had heard. I got fired for that. Small
towns want kangaroo courts. I don’t jump.
BTW, I spent most of the night reading up on this case, and am fully
convinced the cops were absolutely wrong. I set high standards for law
enforcement. As a Military Police sergeant, I would not tolerate
misconduct. Nor as an undercover, nor as a town mayor, and certainly
not as a municipal judge. There has been sufficient time for both sides
to come out. This is not poker. No surprises here. This case has seen
enough daylight since it began in January that all the mold is dead.
The travesty I see here is that the city of Deming’s residents will pay
the price for this instead of the perpetrators, the feral officers who
are not of the law. If bad policing resulted in a personal penalty for
those involved, the Police would choose a higher standard.
If a swat team who kicked down the wrong door and shot dead an innocent
citizen were made to face the death penalty, they would not be as apt to
make those kind of life and death mistakes. Heck, if they were forced
to pay a few million of personal damage claims, they might wake up and
As for the Zimmerman case, I do believe most of your readers had viewed
both sides. I know I certainly had. I read about Zimmerman and martin
less then a week after it happened. I for one was not fooled by the hue
and cry raised by his parental failures. I’ve been reading your blog for
nearly a year.
As for me, prior to 9-11-01, several of my weapons rode with local
deputies as a matter of routine. Small counties in Kansas could not
afford all the geegaw that now gets handed out, and they needed top gear
which I happen to own." and this is what I got in return, "
He is the proof of theory
14 minutes ago