 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
TOPNews.USA Hit Piece March 25, 2023 Reguritating others lies, like the LA Times. "Only one tribunal ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber."-U.S. v Faretta , 422 U.S. 806 (1975) REASONABLE DOUBT "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. (c) 1995-2026 |
Los Angeles Police Department Sues Owner of Anti-Cop Website for Posting Photos and Paying Rewards Three Los Angeles police officers are suing the owner of killercops.com, accusing him of posting their photos on his website and offering a "bounty" for them. This is the first lawsuit related to the Los Angeles Police Department’s release of the names and photos of nearly all of its sworn officers — more than 9,300 officers, including some who work undercover — as part of a public records request. Last Friday, the police team released the image online. The lawsuit, filed Friday by the Los Angeles Police Protective League on behalf of officers Adam Gross, Adrian Rodriguez and Douglas Panameno, seeks the removal of photos and other identifying information from killercops.com. In a tweet cited in the lawsuit, Stephen Sutcliffe, who posts under the moniker @KillerCops1984, allegedly wrote: "Remember, #Rewards double all year for #detectives and #policewomen." The tweet contained an image of a cash reward for the killing of an LAPD officer, the lawsuit said. According to the lawsuit, a later tweet allegedly included a link to the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition’s officer photo database along with the caption, "Clear head shots of these #LAPD officers. From A to Z". In an interview Friday, Sutcliffe said of the lawsuit: "It’s malicious. This is in response. He is vindictive and frivolous. Their movement is full of lies." He added: "They are trying to silence my freedom of speech. Truth cannot be revenge. This is 1st Amendment protected language." The information about the officers was released by Los Angeles police officials in response to a public records request by a reporter from the nonprofit Knock LA, and later released by the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, a group that wants to dismantle traditional law enforcement but has meanwhile pushed for radical transparency. The Watch the Watchers database includes each officer’s name, ethnicity, rank, date of hire, department/bureau and badge number, as well as a photograph of the officer. After the launch of the site, department heads reported that they inadvertently released photos of undercover officers, and they launched an internal investigation to determine how the error occurred. Sources said there are dozens, if not hundreds, of undercover officers whose identities were compromised at the time of the release. Los Angeles Police Chief Michelle Moore said in an interview Friday that he supports the league’s efforts to remove the photos from Sutcliffe’s website. He added that the department is investigating whether the "incitement to violence against the officers" was criminal in nature. "The posts, the nature of the posts, it’s not just intimidation. They make threats and it can be a crime," he said. "That’s one of the things I was worried about and feared when we released these photos ostensibly for transparency, that others were going to use them to threaten our officers." The chief said he had taken steps to address safety concerns for those whose photos were published. "We got it wrong in the sense that there were pictures that shouldn’t have been there," Moore said. "Now, but that ship has sailed. All those photos are here. What I find troubling is that, as I feared … actors or individuals who are now taking this information and trying to scare and scare and scare." Asked if he knew of any officers whose cover had been blown or if any major operations had been disrupted, Moore said, "I’m not aware of anything at this point." Nevertheless, he added, the damage was done. "It affects us significantly from a moral point of view, and with that in mind, it’s very unfortunate," he said. The publication of the photos shook the Los Angeles police. Sources said this prompted some officers to consider resignation. Tom Saggau, a spokesman for the Police Protective League, which is the union representing rank-and-file officers. said the league plans to file a lawsuit against the city and the Los Angeles Police Department. Dozens of undercover officers are expected to file a class-action lawsuit against the department, according to attorneys representing the officers. Saggau said the union was more concerned about the city’s "colossal mistake" than the journalist who first obtained the photos or the watchdog group that published them. "They got the information through the PRA [public records request]," he said. "It’s a mistake by the city to release information that should never have been released, and other sites are using that information and putting bounties on cops’ heads." The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Sutcliffe allege that the alleged threats, combined with their photos shared online, caused them emotional distress. These three are not working undercover. Saggau said Panameno works in the department’s motor vehicle division. The assignments of the other two officers have not been released. On Monday, the union filed a formal complaint against Moore and Elizabeth Rhodes, director of the Los Angeles Police Department. Moore asked inspector general to take over the investigation to avoid a conflict of interest. Multiple LAPD sources, who were not authorized to discuss the photo scandal, said Rhodes, who oversaw the release of the photo, had to make sure any undercover officers were left out of the news release. In a letter to Moore on Thursday, the union’s board of directors said it had lost confidence in Rhodes and asked the supervisor to send her on homework. Moore said he could not discuss the request, citing personnel matters. Legal experts say a judge will have to decide whether the tweets at issue in the lawsuit meet the legal definition of a threat. That’s a separate issue from the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition’s decision to release the photos, said Aaron McKee, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The First Amendment generally protects the publication of information obtained from the government, even if it was published in error, McKee said. LAPD officers may argue that the release of their photos, hire dates and other information is an invasion of their privacy, but that argument is unlikely to hold up in court, he said. "They have no reasonable expectation of privacy for that basic information," Mackey said. Sutcliffe has previously faced legal trouble over online threats. In 2003, he Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government," Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65, 86 (1st Cir. 2004) FILE A COMPLAINT
TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE (c) 1995-2026 | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
