Appeals Court To Cops: If You 'Don't Have Time' For 'Constitutional Bullshit,' You Don't Get Immunity
from the they're-rights,-not-privileges dept
A disabled vet with PTSD accidentally called a suicide prevention hotline when intending to dial the Veterans Crisis Line. Within hours, he was dealing with DC Metro's finest, dispatched to handle an attempted suicide. This brief quote from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals opinion [PDF] -- part of veteran Matthew Corrigan's first conversation with responding officers -- sets the tone for the next several hours of Constitutional violations.
The officer who had asked for his key told him: “I don’t have time to play this constitutional bullshit. We’re going to break down your door. You’re going to have to pay for a new door.” Corrigan Dep. 94:15–18. Corrigan responded, “It looks like I’m paying for a new door, then. I’m not giving you consent to go into my place.” Id. 94:19–21.
This is as much respect as the responding officers had for Corrigan's Constitutional rights. The rest of the opinion shows how they handled the supposed suicide case with the same level of care.
The opening of the opinion recounts just how dangerous it is to talk to nearly anyone linked to the government about your personal problems.
Matthew Corrigan is an Army Reservist and an Iraq war veteran who, in February 2010, was also an employee of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. On the night of February 2, 2010, suffering from sleep deprivation, he inadvertently phoned the National Suicide Hotline when dialing a number he thought to be a Veterans Crisis Line. When he told the Hotline volunteer that he was a veteran diagnosed with PTSD, she asked whether he had been drinking or using drugs and whether he owned guns. Corrigan assured her that he was only using his prescribed medication and was not under the influence of any illicit drugs or alcohol; he admitted that he owned guns. The volunteer told him to “put [the guns] down,” and Corrigan responded, “That’s crazy, I don’t have them out.” Corrigan Dep. 56:2–5.
Despite Corrigan’s assurances that his guns were safely stored, the volunteer repeatedly asked him to tell her “the guns are down.” Id. 56:2–14. When asked if he intended to hurt himself or if he intended to “harm others,” he responded “no” to both questions. Id. 69:6–18. Frustrated, Corrigan eventually hung up and turned off his phone, took his prescribed medication, and went to sleep. Id. 56:10–14; 70:6–7. The Hotline volunteer proceeded to notify the MPD.
The MPD picked up the case, drawing in new hunches and "facts," picked up from the world's most direct game of Telephone.
At approximately 11:13 p.m., according to the February 9, 2010, Barricade Report from Lieutenant Glover to the MPD Chief of Police, officers from the MPD Fifth District were dispatched to Corrigan’s home for “Attempted Suicide.” Barricade Rpt. 1. Certain undisclosed “information” led them “to believe the subject was possibly armed with a shotgun.”
"Undisclosed" may as well mean "imaginary." The only thing relayed by the Hotline was that Corrigan owned guns. And owning guns is not the same as being armed with them, as Corrigan tried to make clear to the hotline operator. This wasn't the only thing the MPD imagined into existence to justify its Constitutional violations and destruction of Corrigan's home.
Upon arrival, the officers thought they detected a “strong odor” of natural gas and contacted the gas company, which turned off the gas to the row house.
Police officers have the best noses. The greatest. Perhaps the MPD should have spoken to someone who knew Corrigan and the place he lived FIRST.
[H]is landlady, upon being advised that the reason for the police presence was Corrigan’s attempted suicide, had insisted that was “outrageous” and repeatedly told the MPD officers that there was “a big misunderstanding” because she had known Corrigan for two years and had “never felt more comfortable with a neighbor in [her] life.” She had explained to the officers that Corrigan had guns because he was in the military and that his home had electric, not gas, appliances.
So, the police -- faced with a possible suicide intervention -- did what police do best: turned a neighborhood into a war zone and an "intervention" into a standoff where the police were the only willing participants.
The officers contacted Lieutenant Glover at home and he, in turn, gave orders to declare a “barricade situation...”
[...]
At 2:00 a.m., the ERT assumed tactical control of the situation. At 2:10 a.m., the MPD began to secure the perimeter around Corrigan’s home, including evacuating his neighbors.
Inside of this "barricade" was a sleeping war veteran. After being awakened by cops kicking at his front and back doors, Corrigan decided to retreat from the impending confrontation by moving to his bathroom and attempting to return to sleep. When it became apparent sleep wouldn't be an option, he checked his voicemail -- helpfully filled with demands of responding officers -- and placed a call to one of the MPD's "negotiators."
He told the officer he was coming out of the house, that he was unarmed, and that he would be carrying his cellphone in his left hand so it wouldn't be mistaken for a gun by trigger-happy suicide prevention "negotiators." He exited his house, locked the door behind him (both to keep his dog in and the MPD out), and laid down on his back. Police zip tied his hand and told them they only wanted to talk to him. He had committed no crime. Corrigan voluntarily agreed to check in at the Veteran's Hospital for PTSD treatment.
But he refused to give the "negotiators" permission to search his home. That's what triggered the "fuck you and your Constitution" outburst from the MPD's specially-trained suicide prevention unit. The MPD remained convinced Corrigan's house was loaded with IEDs, weapons, and whatever else they could dream up to justify their unconstitutional invasion.
After Corrigan was in MPD custody, Lieutenant Glover ordered the ERT, led by Sergeant Pope, to break in Corrigan’s home to search for “any human threats that remained or victims.”
Screw the Constitution. There might be any number of lives to be saved. How do we know this? Because the DC Metro Police firmly believes this is always the case in these situations, despite any information gathered that points to the contrary.
As a matter of course, Glover explained, if an ERT unit is called to a scene it goes inside 99.9% of the time, see id. 18:12-14, because “[s]tandard protocol” assumes “if there’s one [person inside] there’s two, if there’s two there’s three, if there’s three there’s four, and exponentially on up,” id. 13:18-21.
In the MPD's eyes, every individual is an army. With this being the MPD's "standard protocol," one wonders how it deals with the constant disappointment.
Upon breaking in Corrigan’s home, the ERT encountered only Corrigan’s dog; no one was found inside and no dangerous or illegal items were in plain view.
Frustrated by the lack of plain view dangerousness, the MPD decided to take it out on Corrigan's uncooperative residence. It did this five hours later and, again, without a warrant.
During the second MPD search, EOD officers cut open every zipped bag, dumped onto the floor the contents of every box and drawer, broke into locked boxes under the bed and in the closet, emptied shelves into piles in each room, and broke into locked boxes containing Corrigan’s three firearms.
But wait, there's more:
Upon returning home, Corrigan found his home in complete disarray: the police had left the contents of his bureau drawers and shelves scattered on the floor, his electric stove had been left on, and the front door of his home was left unlocked.
Recovered in the two unconstitutional searches were some weapons, smoke grenades, and fireworks. Corrigan's mistaken call to the wrong hotline resulted in the ten weapons and ammunition charges. That evidence has been suppressed. And because the Appeals Court doesn't find any of the MPD's actions remotely justifiable, the officers performing the searches will have to face Corrigan's lawsuit.
Even assuming, without deciding, that the initial “sweep” of Corrigan’s home by the MPD Emergency Response Team (“ERT”) was justified under the exigent circumstances and emergency aid exceptions to the warrant requirement, the second top-to-bottom search by the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit (“EOD”) after the MPD had been on the scene for several hours was not. The MPD had already secured the area and determined that no one else was inside Corrigan’s home and that there were no dangerous or illegal items in plain sight. Corrigan had previously surrendered peacefully to MPD custody. The information the MPD had about Corrigan — a U.S. Army veteran and reservist with no known criminal record — failed to provide an objectively reasonable basis for believing there was an exigent need to break in Corrigan’s home a second time to search for “hazardous materials,” whose presence was based on speculative hunches about vaguely described “military items” in a green duffel bag.
And assuming, without deciding, that the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement applies to a home, the scope of the second search far exceeded what that exception would allow. In the end, what the MPD would have the court hold is that Corrigan’s Army training with improvised explosive devices (“IEDs”), and the post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) he suffers as a result of his military service — characteristics shared by countless veterans who have risked their lives for this country — could justify an extensive and destructive warrantless search of every drawer and container in his home. Neither the law nor the factual record can reasonably be read to support that sweeping conclusion.
Better yet, the "screw your Constitution" officers have had their immunity stripped.
Because it was (and is) clearly established that law enforcement officers must have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an exigency justifies a warrantless search of a home, and because no reasonable officer could have concluded such a basis existed for the second more intrusive search, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity across the board.
"Objectively reasonable" is not a high bar. But the MPD never had any intent of reaching it. The officer's statement that there was "no time" for the Constitution made that very clear. The failure to find anything in plain view during the first sweep was treated as an excuse to turn a cooperative man's (cooperative except for consent to search) upside down until officers could find something to excuse their steamrolling of the Fourth Amendment. They figured what they uncovered would save them after the fact. That's the ends justifying the means and that's precisely what the Fourth Amendment is there to protect against.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: constitution, matthew corrigan
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Constitutional Bullshit
Can we just tattoo this phrase right on the faces of officers that say or do this shit? And when they scream for their "constitutional" rights regarding cruel or unusual punishment, how about we just tell them, you already said you didn't have time to play this constitutional bullshit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constitutional Bullshit
Can you blame the officers for getting the memo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constitutional Bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constitutional Bullshit
Empire is above morality, beyond morality, in fact, amoral...
Empire is a psychopath, and we are all enablers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constitutional Bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constitutional Bullshit
With that having been said, we have to face the fact that the Constitution has observed (in these drone strikes, at least) as the NCA, using the rights granted by the War Powers act, has declared those persons as military combatants AND direct threats to National Security or the security interests of the United States.
As the laws are currently written, this declaration makes the acts technically legal. We can hate that it's legal, we can strive to force Congress to change the laws, but we cannot in truth claim the incidents are unlawful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constitutional Bullshit
Not that I like it, but how is that a constitutional issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Constitutional Bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constitutional Bullshit
"I don’t have time to play this constitutional bullshit."
Says Theresa May when faced by the Judges opinion on parliamentary approval for Article 50. The Daily Mail and the Daily Express scream in wild support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constitutional Bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The suicide hotline ratted him out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The suicide hotline ratted him out?
He called them, accidentally or not, and said that 1) he had PTSD and was ex-military, 2) was on medication, and 3) had firearms.
False alarm or not, anyone working at such a hotline should feel obligated to act on such a call. Not to mention that he only accidentally called the suicide hotline, but was genuinely trying for the Veteran's Crisis Line.
No excuse whatsoever for the police, but the suicide hotline acted in a manner that I think should be expected of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The suicide hotline ratted him out?
Have you never heard of swatting? It is simply justified homicide to the DA. And responses like yours help to perpetuate such actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The suicide hotline ratted him out?
The hotline operator contacted the police about a potential suicide. The police took it far beyond any reasonable action.
The actions of the police does not reflect on proper response from phone line operators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The suicide hotline ratted him out?
Calling suicide hotlines is not safe and will make your problems 10× worse.
Got it!
Never calling a suicide hotline again, unless I need the cops to keep someone busy for a day or two....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The suicide hotline ratted him out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The suicide hotline ratted him out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The suicide hotline ratted him out?
In most civilised countries, this would have been a polite 5 minute conversation followed by an apology for the misunderstanding. You can't blame a suicide hotline for uncivilised cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The suicide hotline ratted him out?
Anyone would think this was the first time US police officers escalated matters beyond all reasonable bounds.
This latest example just goes to show that calling American police for ANY reason whatever is a BAD idea.
At least Mr Corrigan isn't dead, an all-too-likely outcome nowadays when tangling with American police forces escalating an incident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only surprising thing about this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The only surprising thing about this...
I still can't figure out why they turned the oven on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only surprising thing about this...
I've two theories on this:
They were still hoping the electric oven would produce the claimed smell of gas with the chance of destroying his place via gassy fireball an added bonus, or
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The only surprising thing about this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The only surprising thing about this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The only surprising thing about this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only surprising thing about this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only surprising thing about this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only surprising thing about this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only surprising thing about this...
I still can't figure out why they turned the oven on.
They made doughnuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The only surprising thing about this...
If they thought he had gas appliances, it's a nice cover to say "See? We had to break in, he was trying to kill himself!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The only surprising thing about this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RCMP CANADA WANT WARRANTLESS ACCESS TO ISPS
WOW consideringthe current govt was SUPPOSED TO CURB BILLC51 it not only hasnt it looks like the intenet will be a freefor all for cops spying on granma and all your dirty lil poron habits meanwhile as yet NOT ONE CASE OF THIS TECH BEWING USED TO STOP TERRORISTS
WHY CAUSE THEY ARENT AS STUPID AS THE RCMP THINK
HECK EVEN BIKERS AND THE MOB LEARNED IT
NO ONE DOING CRIME BUT RETARDS USES PHONES OR INTERNET
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Countdown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back to school for them boys!
Those guys need to go back to school. That a geometric progression, not exponential.
The constitution is *waaaaaaaaay* to hard for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back to school for them boys!
What they really described, is a linear progression with the common difference 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back to school for them boys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Back to school for them boys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back to school for them boys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back to school for them boys!
One fish, two fish , red fish, explosive fish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back to school for them boys!
"One fish, two fish , red fish, boom fish"
Explosive is too big of a word for them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Searching for drugs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trumps New American Rulebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fear the day when this changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you follow the Left's example in blaming Bush every time Obama failed at something; We would need to blame Obama for everything Trump does wrong until Trump leaves office, THEN we can blame Trump for whatever the next idiot does until they leave office...etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: AnonCow on Nov 16th, 2016 @ 5:38pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
District court...Fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: District court...Fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are We Learning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are We Learning?
It's only ok when the police do it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disturbing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad math
Uh... no.
1 2 3 4 5, that there is an arithmetic progression.
1 2 4 8 16, now we're talking geometric.
2 4 16 256 65536, that's exponential!
The main difference being the amount of time it takes to see that your argument is complete bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad math
In other words, just 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad math
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad math
If there's one person inside, then there's one person inside? I dunno, that just doesn't sound right... /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
do not call the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Give em a call, ask for Alice, she's nice.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are not under attack, never were, and ALL this phony and fraudulent 'war on terror' nonsense has led to people being used as cannon-fodder for US government/banker schemes, and 'Greater Israel', and to the Police State and THIS EXACT SCENARIO - or similar - being played out almost daily, across the country.
~ Occams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you want to criticize the elected officials involved in the "war on terror", I'm right there with you, but don't be dismissive of his or other vets' sacrifices. It's just disrespectful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think he's saying all those wars we've gotten into haven't protected the US or really done any good, thus the soldiers' efforts haven't been "for" the country. I'm not sure I agree and I certainly wouldn't phrase it that way, but I get what he's trying to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Following orders under a failure of leadership is one of the hardest things that can be asked of soldiers, but it is important. We can't have the entire military deserting because they disagree with the leadership.
Like I said, if you want to criticize the civilian leaders involved, please, be my guest. Just don't belittle the sacrifices made by those who bore more consequences from those decisions than anyone else in this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then this episode comes along to disabuse him of that.
The government is worried about ISIS turning people against it, when the police force is doing a much better job. Maybe they're jealous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least he's not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least he's not...
You are absolutely correct. It has been almost 7 long years at this point. But if they did this to me with this finesse and ease, they do this to many others who cannot stand up for themselves. The Veterans the minorities and those with real mental health issues are overrun by these tactics with no resources to stand up for themselves. The Constitution are the rules by which I have served and fought for. That night those rules were not followed and I am grateful to use those rules to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Math Is Hard
er...incrementally. Alternatively
“if there’s two[persons inside] there’s four, if there’s four there’s sixteen, if there’s sixteen there’s 256, and exponentially on up,”
or, how about
“if there’s one [person inside] there’s two, if there’s two there’s three, if there’s three there’s five, and Fibonacci on up,”
or the primary option
“if there’s one [person inside] there’s three, if there’s three there’s five, if there’s five there’s seven, and primes on up,”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comedy of errors gone wrong.
First, we don't know all of the nature of the conversation that went on. But I expect the victem is likely to have been knucklehead towards the cops during at least part of this episode. So the description above doesn't account for the various "fuck you copper!", or equivolent outbursts during the process.
Second, part of PTSD stems from the victem being so acclimated to high stress situations, that they feel more comfortable in them, than in regular daily life. Which is to say that there is a good chance that the cops were being antagonized. If they were, it is because the victem, was in a way, relieving his stress by making the overall situation more stressful. (It is a fucked up thing, but, yeah, that is sort of how it happens sometimes) The description of the guy trying to get some sleep while he was surrounded by cops, sounds a lot like that. He was just trying to cuddle up in his foxhole, because that's what felt normal.
Third, the cops were right to be scared. If somebody like this goes way off the rails, it could go VERY bad. This guy may have not been as bad off as some, but there was no way for the cops to know the full extent of the situation until it is over.
Fourth, the cops job in this circumstance is to see that the PERSON is brought into a way were they are unable to harm themselves or others. In terms of due process of the law, in this case a lot of the shit that went on might seem extreme. But in the case right before, or right after this one, their actions may have been exactly correct.
Sometimes you do the wrong thing for the right reasons. And sometimes you don't get to know it was the wrong until afterwards. That is why doctrine changes.
My hope, is that if the victem gets some therapy for a few years. After that he will probably end up visiting the police, apologizing and buying them a round a beers. Making a big faff out of this, may be an indicator that the guy still isn't recovered.
The tragedy is that winning in court, may help convince him he doesn't need help. If that's the case, he will likely do something like this again, and it won't go as well next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comedy of errors gone wrong.
>After that he will probably end up visiting the police, apologizing and buying them a round a beers.
That is really messed up that you want the victim to apologize to the police who violated his rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comedy of errors gone wrong.
Which is why I said "may". The OP doesn't really reflect what happened at the scene, it reflects what happened in court.
But I think it is fair to say that the guy didn't comply when first approached, and that the dialog in the OP and the attachment, doesn't really contain much about what the victem said. So yes I'm speculating, based on the guy having PTSD, being sleep deprived, and probably becoming agitated, (or perhaps even excited or happy, if that is how his PTSD manifests). And because this went as far as it did, I speculate that the guy is hard headed. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was shit said through the door that his mother wouldn't approve of.
What's important, is that the guy gets help. I'm not saying what the cops did was right. I'm saying: the cops had imperfect information, and probably some experience dealing with situations that look a lot like this. So I can understand some of what they did.
I'm also saying: mistakes made consciously, may not be mistakes to the subconscious mind. The guy may discover in therapy that his "accidental" call wasn't as accidental as he thought it was. And if that is the case, he may find himself understanding that he created some this conflict to fulfill a need that he wasn't consciously aware of. If that's the case, then yeah, I can see him trying to square himself with the other people involved.
I'm not saying he "should" apologize, I'm saying he "might". The mind is a funny thing. American culture celebrates the anhilation of self awareness. Maintaining self awareness is even more difficult when your fucked up from trauma.
So I feel for the guy. But I also feel for the cops. They _may_ be complete dicks. I don't know, I never met them. But the way I read the story they may be victems too. I don't know either case to be true, but I don't discount the possibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Comedy of errors gone wrong.
They certainly acted like complete dicks, by trashing his apartment for no good reason. Remember, the judge said no reasonable officer could have decided to do what they did.
Victims of WHAT?? In what way could you possibly see the cops in this story being victimized?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Comedy of errors gone wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comedy of errors gone wrong.
Upon returning home, Corrigan found his home in complete disarray: the police had left the contents of his bureau drawers and shelves scattered on the floor, his electric stove had been left on, and the front door of his home was left unlocked.
My hope, is that if the victem gets some therapy for a few years. After that he will probably end up visiting the police, apologizing and buying them a round a beers.
Yes, I'm sure he's up for buying a few beers for some assholes who had no respect for his property, left the door unlocked, and the stove on. (still trying to figure that one out, especially since they were concerned earlier about a gas leak)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comedy of errors gone wrong.
But wait, there's more:
Upon returning home, Corrigan found his home in complete disarray: the police had left the contents of his bureau drawers and shelves scattered on the floor, his electric stove had been left on, and the front door of his home was left unlocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comedy of errors gone wrong.
I just saw your comment. WOW!
So true. Or local pigs are garbage. Yes, they actually do all that, and worse.
I advise you, and everyone: get their names, and especially, get a Spokeo or other deep relations website account (Whitepages,com, etc.), and stalk those bastards grandmothers, children, wives, sons, and daughters. These pigs are doing worse to you as you read this.
SO: compile lists about these bastards names, stalk and photograph their children at their bus stops (they have already done this to your children), find out the names of their relatives, and try to get close to them in their nursing homes-and flatten some tires, drop some cameras by their houses, (and film their day to day activities.)
Because these POS have done this, and are doing that to you.
Gang stalking BY police, fire departments, and their associated small town terrorists is how they get away with breaking the law generation after generation.
The story above demonstrates that mechanism.
Lets put them whoever they are out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
I don't recall TDs comment pool taking up arms in the the case of Mathew Riehl, a bi-sexual, Iraq veteran, and lawyer, who chalenged local pigs directly, and who filmed their assaults on him, and who was was gang stalked in Liz Cheneys state of WYoming, and then, murdered in Colorado, as he tried to uphold his second amendment rights against DVIC idealized, and proselytized and DVIC funded cops.
It was a free speech case from start, to murder by cop.
He was mixed race. Many mass shoters who are targeted by these people are mixed race.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
In other words, shot a bunch of cops and two bystanders after barricading himself in his bedroom. I am not surprised you don't see a lot of people sticking up for the guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Canyon_Apartment_Homes_shooting
The lesson here is we need a much better mental health system in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
Strange, you mean the actual story is not the version that lives in this guy's head? How weird!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
Shocking, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
cyber stalking, techdirt, PaulT, exactly two trolls, Mathew Riehl, speech policing, psychological operations online, mass shootings in the USA
LOOK!
How did an obscure post from 2016 suddenly get popular with two of the specific, toxic web trolls that I have named here at Techdirt (and those two, I mentioned specifically this week as you will recall)?
To the student, note that these specific, named trolls managed to follow me onto a post that was OG posted in 2016, and now, continue the exact meta-narrative there in front of you.The question:
Then, show me your analysis, and speculate upon the cause-effect relationships involved, using the prisoners dillemma in your response, contrasted with ROGS Analysisof cyber stalking.
Use this on the worksheets. A simple link citation is acceptable.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161113/06093636030/appeals-court-to-cops-if-you-dont -have-time-constitutional-bullshit-you-dont-get-immunity.shtml?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
"How did an obscure post from 2016 suddenly get popular"
Because I keep getting emails informing me that you're personally attacking me here for no reason. If you don't want me to react, you might want to stop that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
KW:
online mobbing, techdirt, nasch, PaulT gang stalking denialism, Mathew Riehl
Hi nasch. Um, no, you are wrong, again. Would you care to spar about the details ( I mean-the details that are still available after the IC hid the webpages where we could have followed the trail of his online harassers (aka webscrubbed his web pages) hiding the evidence?
Yeah, I didn't think so. I would cream you. You seldom have anything to say about evidence.
Matt Riehl was killed for exchanging Tweets with the sheriffs office. The record of that is clear:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/12/31/multiple-deputies-down-after-being-call ed-scene-denver/993297001/
"Matthew Riehl, 37, an armed forces veteran who had exchanged angry tweets with the sheriff's office"
But Riehl ( an attorney who knew his free speech rights) was also stalked in college for using bad wordz.
A whisper campaign was then waged behind his back, and school administrators admitted as much (Google research organized gang stalking and Mathew Riehl).
They didn't like that he criticized "Rapecults" fake christian feminists, and other pet causes of the NGOs. Because, in the psychiatric meta-narrative, bad words (lashon hara) means "mental illness" to those who derive income from such narratives.
Then, Riehl filmed sheriffs illegally stopping him, and harassing him, and then, put that content online, and threatened to run for sheriff himself.
Then, the gang stalking slander campaign AFTER that was ferocious, so he moved to conservative christian Colorado; and was shot in his home as local police thugs broke down his door as he demanded a warrant (which they did not provide).
Not much different than the case above, in most respects.
So, yeah, call it whatever your psychiatric meta-narrative needs to call it, you are still wrong on the facts.
I have a question for you nasch: exactly how did you know I commented on this post from 2016, as I commented on it in 2020?
I mean, LOOK! Two of my favorite web stalkers-who repeatedly follow me around TD (proven by this above) managed to comment here, after this post got ZERO other commenters in four years?
I mean, really, make my case for me, pal. But out of the thousands who read TD, its just you, and that troll up there who managed to stalk me here.
Not a coincidence, considering TDs world-wide audience. In a world of flypaper mirrors, nasch, even the honeynets trap flies like you two.
And really, Wikipedia is a long discredited intelligence operation in and of itself.Citing Wikipedia is the equivalent of citing poker as the ultimate authority on game theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
"And really, Wikipedia is a long discredited intelligence operation in and of itself"
No, it's a generally accepted as not a primary source. Which is why actual citations are important, which are often linked to wikipedia posts, but strangely not yours.
Would it kill you to cite a primary source for this particular hoard on of yours rather than vague attacks on people who clearly haven't drunk from the same conspiracy well, as you have? We're always willing to discuss facts, we 're just not up to date on the particular source you drink from, if facts are existent there at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
Wikipedia is a controlled intelligence operation at best, and much like TD, has in-house intel agents and trolls writing it.
This is also why its banned in China; and why Aaron Swartz claimed that it needed deeper scrutiny as a primary source.
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
I don't know you, but I do know you are a non-contributor here at TD, a complete bully, and a binary fallacy spewing moron.
Your evidence, then, is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
"Your evidence, then, is bullshit"
I don't know what comment you tonight you were replying to, but the one that you actually replied to made no claim of evidence, it merely said that Wikipedia was not a reliable primary source. I didn't provide evidence, I requested it.
What that has to do with your comment is anyone's guess, outside the diseased feverish mind of someone who thinks that people responding to the comments he makes about them personally is some kind of trolling.
Would you like to try again, this time actually referring to thing you reply to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
When you are claiming to have evidence that nobody else has access to because it's been "scrubbed"? No thank you.
You seldom have any.
Because I never unsubscribed from comment notifications on it.
"Stalking" seems to be your go to explanation for any kind of interaction between people who don't personally know each other. Just because I typed something on a message forum doesn't mean I'm stalking you. If you don't want people to know about your messages, then don't post them. If you do want people to notice them, then stop complaining when they do.
No, it's not a coincidence. Responding to bullshit on forums is kind of my thing, so it shouldn't be surprising that it happened again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
nasch, online bullying, techdirt, Mathew Riehl, webscrubbing
Listen, its well established in the media narrative that the police, the IC, and the FBI, working with SCMED companies webscrubs the presence of those who are gang stalked until they go ballistic. That's not even in dispute anywhere, except here by you, to whit: When you are claiming to have evidence
I haven't made such a claim, here. So again, you argue from a false premise.
What I did claim, is that I will spar with you, here. But again, you come out of your corner with loaded gloves on. You are simply disqualified at the bell, most of the time.
Then: I never unsubscribed from comment
Well, based on your levels of honesty in the past, this may, or may not be true. If true, ok, fine. Maybe.
BUt it begs the question: why would you follow this post so closely? Are you like me-that sometimes I submit stories here? And that, just to create a long-term meta narrative, to validate the claims of these people who are gang stalked by police.
SO, "Stalking" seems to be your go to explanation for any kind of interaction between people who don't personally know each other.
No, it isn't: its my definition of being followed and harassed here by you and that other disingenuous troll, both of whom I am on record asking specifically that you do not reply to me, or otherwise seek my interaction. Its far past that point though, because HERE YOU ARE, AGAIN!
SO, in the real world, a bar for example. If I got up and left my seat after you sat down next to me (simple etiquette) and then you followed me repeatedly as I repeatedly asked you to not stalk me, and then moved away from you AGAIN, this would be considered stalking in that environment.
And, depending upon the bar, I would then signal to the cameras above, and then, to inform the bouncer, and take out my phone and film you doing this, or other options, all of which would lead to you getting tossed out.
But not here, at troll comment friendlyTechdirt, for some reason lol.
So, yeah. There are piles of evidence that webscrubbing and deleting these peoples Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/etc. in these cases is a thing, documented in the MSM in most cases (Matt Riehl was just one example) I have repeatedly provided cases, and trolls like you begin your flag brigades. Thats fairly telling of who or what you are.
In fact, in most of these cases the FBI can't trip over its Mormon underwear fast enough to delete their presence in these cases, most notably by shutting down 8chan awhile ago.
So, really, you are disingenuous at best, and a bullying piece of shit in the least for saying as much.Face to face, I am certain you would come around to seeing it my way.
Then If you don't want people to know about your messages, then don't post them. If you do want people to notice them, then stop complaining when they do.
Again, here you are directly attempting coercion. You are deploying a ruleset that I have never seen you apply to any other commenter here, including in your comments above. This is classic bullying by definition.
Then, you admit as much: Responding to bullshit on forums is kind of my thing
You haven't even engaged with anything I have said, anywhere. In your bizarre mind, you are responding to bullshit, but never addressing facts.
So, lets start with a fact, and try to wrap your bizarre bullying paradigm around it:
Do you disagree with this fact nasch?
If so, why?
And what evidence do YOU have, other than that you are a bully, whose online identity and narcissistic self conception is that of some type of hero whose cause is Responding to bullshit on forums.
Does your little hero suit have a big letter R for Responder on it, or a B, for Bully?
Either way, try to engage with the fact I state above, which, while you may not like it as a fact, does not diminish the empirical evidence of its existence as a fact.
SO, feel free to call it whatever you want. But the evidence is that they are hiding the evidence of these men's web interactions, and that is the first step to understanding how these cases work, not your or anyone else's armchair psychology after the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
It's been explained to you at least twice already but I'll try it again. Any time anyone makes a comment on this post (or any other I'm subscribed to) I get an email about it. It doesn't matter if the original story is from this morning or five years ago. I don't pay any closer attention to this post than any other, I just read the email I get from Techdirt.
Interesting, I don't recall that. Well it's not up to you, and I'm not infringing on any of your liberties or privacy by replying. If you don't want someone to reply to comments on a public message board, then I recommend you not put them there.
Your analogy is terrible and has no bearing on this situation.
It's called advice. You do what you want.
That's only a fact if it's true, and I see no particular reason to think it is. I will leave it to you to ponder why I might not think that your claim is true.
It's just Spider-Man Underoos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
I am not surprised that an avowed Nazi, you, nasch in this case, would recommend the psychiatric meta-narrative as a cure for social ills, like militarized cops, who work at the behest of drug companies.
(fair disclosure: I can provide you with hundreds of millions in pharmaceuticals from China and India, but that does NOT alter my perspective about your false narrative, and its effect on US democracy)
Matt Riehl and me frequently have tea together here in heaven, and guess what? His mother was a piece of work (what a bitch!) and his out of the box thinking, his biting critique of the various
fakerape NGOs that have co-opted dissent, his dislike of the professional left and his mixed race seemed to agitate a few of the US race baiters on both sides, like the K4 affiliated mobs, and their allies in right wing policing.
We both agree that we should have taken YOUR advice, and just eaten some Big Pharma dope, and then, allowed people like you to continue to destroy our democracy with dope, but hen again, we concur that your path is a false one, and our path was burdened by people like you.
Obviously, I didn't have an AK47 in my hour of need, but FUCK YEAH! It would have helped in my situation with those Jimbobs.
People like you were what the lynch mob that killed me were made of.
SO,like ROGS, I remain sceptical of your sudden appearance on a four year old thread. I mean, really: explain yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
Psychiatry and psychology are the cure for the psychosis the man suffered from (well not anymore but could have been), not militarization of the police.
I already did. Now you explain yourself. What prompted you to comment on a four year old thread? Are you stalking someone? Seems suspicious, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
nasch, meta narrative, techdirt trolls, cyber stalking, story telling; Zimbardo, Milgram, Bates
You failed logic class, right?
As in: ROGS was here at this post FIRST, followed shortly thereafter by you two trolls, who could not have had any knowledge that I had posted here.
What part of you two followed me here don't you get? And how did you pull THAT off?
So, yeah, you have validated that point for any onlooker.
And, though I owe you no answers, for the sake of others, I will answer your question:
I came here to this post, because many Techdirt stories validate my meta-narrative, not yours.
And in case you don't know what a meta narrative is, its basically just story telling, as opposed to your forms of bullying in order to enforce your goals in meta narratives.
The story above is just one of those stories, and the veteran involved endured the exact type of harassment that Mathew Riehl endured (and arguably, Riehl endured the same or similar types of cyber stalking that you demonstrate too).
This is the psychatric meta-narrative in action, and it appears in many cases where Iraq whistle blowers and others who witnessed war crimes, etc. are involved.
The veteran Walter Laak in Las Vegas was notoriously a fall guy in the Abu Ghraib torture scandals. He most notably actually called these shenanigans gang stalking; but there are many other cases, and no amount of , bullshit narrative control or big pharma dope will cure these guys of anything, because they are the actual victims of gang stalking by cops, and others in the community policing schema.
Now, as for "Psychiatry and psychology are the cure for the psychosis the man suffered from"
I disagree with you, based upon the EVIDENCE that the man was harassed by multiple police departments, all of whom actively disrupted his social media accounts, and actively worked with others to stop him from speaking.
And I will continue to disagree with the junk/pseudo- science of psychiatry and psychology in these cases, because both are mere repetitions of psychiatric meta-narrative, which precludes men like these talking to other sources, like journalists and the ACLU, etc.
In these cases, psychiatrists act as narrative gatekeepers, ensuring the psychiatric fictions of mental illness (as in diagnosing depression, where in fact repression of story telling is a better call) rather than exposing the tactics of narrative control agents (like you, here, now, stalking my posts).
While I do believe that Rogers/Freud styled talk therapy is a good thing for many people entrapped in the Jewish-christian cultures, and the massive billion dollar industries that push meta-narratives, I don't think these concepts transfer outside of Jewish-christian dominated dialectics.
In fact, evidence indicates as much, anywhere you look. BUt its not my job to educate trolls and bullies like you.
And, internet activist and tv personality, and open source crusader Aaron Swartz had similar run-ins with people like you too.
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001595
SO, yeah, there's that. If anyone needs psychology, its those of you who push those fraudulent narratives and pseudo-sciences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
"ROGS was here at this post FIRST"
You weren't, but if you were, why are you mocking others for posting on an old thread, when you believe you did it first?
"who could not have had any knowledge that I had posted here."
...unless you let your psychotic mind address reality for a moment and understand that people who post on a thread get emails to alert that someone else has posted on it. Then you'd realise that everyone you're whining about posted here in 2016, a full 4 years before your first post, and they're just responding to the alerts that you're here talking shit about them again.
I'd assume you'd know that since you keep replying to people yourself, unless your psychosis means that you're just refreshing pages manually, which makes your life even sadder than I'd originally believed.
Your inability to address simple reality like that, instead preferring to invent a fictional tale of stalking, does not bode well for the accuracy of anything else you post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
Um, I forgot to mention: the guy was not suffering from psychosis in any form. Its odd you would even find the time to insert that loaded psychology term into this, but you did that
In the article above, it clearly says that the victim of thispolice and community NGO gang stalking event was suffering from sleep deprivation
Psychosis is a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
Hence, you are not much different than that other troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
There's a reason I did that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Canyon_Apartment_Homes_shooting
https://www.washingtonpost.com /news/post-nation/wp/2018/01/03/from-law-school-to-his-bloody-end-the-colorado-shooters-life-was-ful l-of-warning-signs/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-colorado-gunman-matthew-riehl-201 80102-story.html
I've provided sources indicating that he did suffer from psychotic episodes. I wonder if you will provide any that show he did not. I'm not asking for them, because I really don't care if you do or not, it's just idle curiosity. I would hate for you think I'm bullying or coercing you after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Threat Assessment, Mathew Riehl, misdiagnoses, PMN
Wow, you engaged. Your assessment is taken, fair enough, if in fact, any opinion and assessment of Riehl was fair, or enough in his lifetime.
But yours is not a clinical assessment by any stretch, and you are arguing narrowly that he was psychotic and that is as we know, an entirely impossible diagnoses, because it is not, and cannot be objective:
delusions. hallucinations. paranoia.Please do define these things, nasch, because you can't and a paid army of psychiatric meta narrative pushers cannot either. And this is exactly the point that gang stalking denialists are finding difficult: a delusion in America is often a revelation in a sacred Ayahausca ceremony, if you get my drift.
It's the apophenie v. epiphany problem in psychological assessments of type 1 and 2 errors of reference.
But you didn't cite a single clinical assessment anywhere.Why did you not cite an actual clinical assessment, or personality test, or other psychometric?
None of the source materials did either. Just lots of he said0she said, about what Mathew Riehl said.
So, now I ask you: because media narratives are second hand sources, frequently quoting third, fourth hand commentary, *do you have a copy of Mathew Riehl's MMPI, or any other screener?
No? Right, And your Chi-Trib article doesn't mention one either. Wikipedia is as I stated it is above, and fortunately for me, the country I live in does not allow links to the WaPo, because it is a known propaganda rag.
SO, let's see, from the Chi-Trib: "The VA document said Riehl was hospitalized at the veterans medical center in Sheridan, Wyoming, in April 2014 after a psychotic episode."
Ok. There it is! The VA said it is so, so it is so, right? Is that the argument you are making?
If that's the case, we see nationwide, some 12 million misdiagnoses every year:
https://www.research.va.gov/currents/summer2014/summer2014-8.cfm
And other sources note the trend in VA misdiagnoses of veterans:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/02/24905-veterans-nationwide-were-misdiagnosed-by-unq ualified-doctors-at-the-va/
Well, its not a case that would hold up in court, is it? In your Chi-Trib article alone, there is zero evidence of his actual state of mind, or any evidence that he was in any sense, impaired (a whole nother topic, because psychologists frequently call inebriation and impairment too).
SO, because your sources are simply and only newspaper clippings, lets go on, with a quote from my late favorite lad:
Ok, let's proceed.
So, one of the widely police-circulated PMN quotes, from the Denver Post was
"Matthew Riehl, the man who shot and killed a Douglas County sheriff’s deputy, was bipolar and had a manic breakdown during the summer."
Here, ogle some cop porn for that quote: https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/02/douglas-county-shooting-matthew-riehl-bipolar-ptsd/
As you and others like to say, [citation necessary] because in that article, nor any other newspaper, there is no clinical assessment cited, or quoted, and no newspaper has his diagnostic workup, or citations pointing to it.
And of course, on the point of evidence of psychological character and makeup, none of which can be either fair, or enough (ever), because we do not and cannot know the nature of these assessments, or whether he was actually diagnosed with anything, or just some total rando at the VA said so because he didn't like Riehl, or Riehl didn't like him.
The nature of the psychological meta-narrative is designed exactly this way, and the sketchy at best nature of diagnosis of any so-called mental illness can never be proven by any actual standards, anywhere, other than-you guessed it-the same organization that sets the standards (talk about lack of oversight, lol).
SO, in your evidence, you have a couple newspapers, and Wikipedia's famously biased western narrative, and Jeff Bezo's favorite propaganda outlet, with a definite and demonstrable media bias.
The short answer is this: Mathew Riehl's own opinion of what it was that he personally experienced has been scrubbed from the web. Neither you, nor I have all of his words to go by, though I have more of his own words than you do stored offline, and which I reference on my website.
In my professional and amateur roles, my opinion of Mathew Riehl's speech, and opinions, is that he simply had an opinion. Is that clear?
But nothing he said indicated mental illness to me, unless opinions can be now counted as mental illness.
Now
An important correction to your opinion of what counts as a source is that you provided opinions based on his words which were web scrubbed from the internet.
That's just an opinion about other opinions.
Is that clear to you?
So, yeah, that.
As for I would hate for you think I'm bullying or coercing, well a bit late for that dontchathink? I already wrote my paper on that topic, lol.
In it, you are a minor part of the mob, but an online mobber nonetheless nonetheless Crowd psychology is an interesting thing, and we don't always get it right. But sociology has a little more leeway.
Nice try, but, um, no. You are still incorrect, and your argument devoid of any evidence, whereas I have Mathew Riehls actual words, and his lived, described existence to base my clinical assessment off of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Threat Assessment, Mathew Riehl, misdiagnoses, PMN
Well there you go. No evidence of psychological issues could ever satisfy you, so even if I had a video recording of a psychiatrist describing his psychotic breaks, it wouldn't be enough. I mean, why are you even asking for evidence of psychosis when you don't even believe it's a real thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mathew Riehl, gun control, Techdirt
"I don't recall TDs comment pool taking up arms in the the case of Mathew Riehl"
I don't recall having heard of that story. Was it written about here? If not, did you submit a story rather than attacking other commenters with pointless bull?
"He was mixed race. Many mass shoters who are targeted by these people are mixed race."
...and many are black, Asian or white. I can name multiple race-specific mass shootings, as well as many that have nothing to do with race at all. So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@all
Refer to the handout where I discuss empathy v. sympathy
Then, use the word timesucker in your response.
Some of you might recall that this odious troll permeated the workings of the flag brigade in the specified time period.
You are welcome to reference that, and add your analysis, but note that it is not required, nor will I deduct points in the overall matrix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cyber stalking, PaulT, psychiatric meta narrative, bullying, Mat
Note the especially sadisitic intentions of the PaulT persona and the other, working in tandem; and the troll PaulTs particular inability to engage with facts.
Its entire narrative is a personal attack on the speaker, and never a single engagement with any fact presented.
So, again, I offer you one more chance to engage with a fact (which you never do, nor are you capable of it):
The web stalker (who I repeatedly asked on multiple occasions to NOT interact with me here, refer to page seven in the article, pp3) has as its goal, the promotion of the psychiatric meta narrative (PMN)
The guy in the article above was gang stalked by multiple police departments and agencies that gain funding through psychiatric meta narratives (PMN), which are deployed against the Constitutional rights of citizens.
Techdirt covered the fact that this was in fact, an assault against constitutional rights, and the fact that the victim of this attack was in fact, denied liberty, and this because of the psychiatric fallacy which is chock full of lies and tactics itself, beginning with the operatives like the little word twisting liar on the hotline:
The volunteer told him to “put [the guns] down,” and Corrigan responded, “That’s crazy, I don’t have them out.” Corrigan Dep. 56:2–5. Despite Corrigan’s assurances that his guns were safely stored, the volunteer repeatedly asked him to tell her “the guns are down.”[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cyber stalking, PaulT, psychiatric meta narrative, bullying,
"cyber stalking"
You are directly talking to me. How is me responding to your direct messages to me stalking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of the more interesting things about how Matt Riehl was gang stalked, until he defended himself in his home as cops busted in without a warrant, is the testimony of a guy named Steven Silknitter, who was there at the shooting:
Resident Steven Silknitter, 50, told The Denver Post that he heard 15 to 20 shots.
"It was back and forth — unbelievable," said Silknitter, who lived in the Denver suburb of Aurora during a 2012 movie theater shooting that left 12 dead.
https://www.enewscourier.com/news/state_and_nation/update-colorado-deputies-shot-fatally-in-ambush- attack/article_5dee7398-ee7f-11e7-9a8b-97df562e72e7.html
Oh, wait! Steven Silknitter WASNT there！
"Steven Silknitter, was working elsewhere at the time of the shooting. He told the Denver Post that when he heard about the attack he immediately called his fiancee who was at their home. Silknitter said, “She was pretty scared. She kept saying how loud it was.” "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]