Home > Uncategorized > How to sue the cops and win

How to sue the cops and win

IF there’s one lawyer whose name local authorities loathe to see in the upper left corner of a specially delivered document, it’s Dennis Cunningham’s.

In recent memory, Humboldt County Supervisors ate some serious crow after paying $1.5 million for recklessly pursuing the 7 years-long “Pepper Spray case” against Cunningham’s activist clients. Before that, Cunningham secured a $4.4 Million jury award in the case against the FBI and Oakland Police on behalf of the late Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney.

But the stench of official stubbornness is set to burn both nostrils as the City of Eureka and the Village of Ferndale seem bent on litigation to defend bad cop behavior. There is high probability that both will lose.

Cunningham’s office already filed a wrongful death suit based on the Eureka Police shooting of Cheri Moore.

Now Ferndale appears willing to face the famed attorney after rejecting a civil claim in the case of Sean Marsh, who was wrongly arrested by a village cop afflicted with an Eric Cartman complex.

Some things are indefensible, as the jury in the Marsh case found within minutes of deliberation. But a “not guilty” verdict doesn’t always resolve a situation. Marsh lost his job because of the legal charade against him. Cheri Moore lost her life.

The decision-makers in these two situations would be wise to think carefully before moving to bang briefcases in a courtroom against Dennis Cunningham. Unless, of course, they’re sitting on a pile of money they’re willing to lose to Cunningham’s war chest.

Image sources: here and here.

  1. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 11:21 am

    >Unless, of course, they’re sitting on a pile of money they’re willing to lose to Cunningham’s war chest

    No problem…. it’s not their money.
    It’s money they took from all of us ILLEGALLY. Just like everything else “our government” does.

  2. Eric V. Kirk
    June 21, 2007 at 11:35 am

    Cunningham’s good. Of course, in the Judi Bari case he had the help of Tony Serra and some other very good counsel.

  3. Heraldo Riviera
    June 21, 2007 at 11:53 am

    The same is true for the pepper spray case. No doubt Cunningham still has similar resources to draw on.

  4. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    Oh yeah – Cunningham got the plaintiffs ONE dollar. I call that really REALLY good.

    Get a grip.

  5. Heraldo Riviera
    June 21, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    The dollar matters less than the $1.5 Million ultimately paid.

  6. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    More people should carry guns. It would discourage crooked cops.

  7. mresquan
    June 21, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    I believe that the plaintiffs only were asking for one dollar.I think they got everything that they wanted.

  8. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    Jeez Konkler – you are really wrong with that one. They definitely asked for more than One Dollar. The jury just split the baby to end the retrials and gave them a dollar. Then that spun a lot of problems as to whether they could be called a prevailing party in order to get Cunningham’s attorney’s fees. Go back and read about it and you will find out that you have really been misinformed if you believe that all they asked for was a dollar….

    BTW – you think that the county wouldn’t have given them the dollar if that is all they wanted?

    Sorry Mark, but you are way off base here.

  9. Heraldo Riviera
    June 21, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    While its true the plaintiffs asked for more than a dollar in the third trial, they also offered to settle for no money at all if the cops would agree to not use pepper spray on non-violent activists. But the cops and county wouldn’t agree. It was a very expensive decision.

  10. Derchoadus
    June 21, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    I think the Ferndale council is scared of payment. It would indicate that they do indeed have a rogue cop, and bring into question all other cases involving this officer. It could open other litigation.

    Besides, they got insurance. What’s a few $100K to them, because that’s what that $25K is going to turn into….

  11. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    A back-to-back hate fest for Her-dildo today; Wal-Mart and cops.
    What a bonanza.

  12. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    “What a bonanza.”

    Watch where you step, 1:26. And wash your mouth.

  13. Rose
    June 21, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    Suing the wrong person, in this case.

  14. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    So by your logic they should not defend themselves because the opposition is so intimidating? Thank goodness Rosa Parks, Ghandi, and the men at the Alamo weren’t like you Heraldo.

  15. Heraldo Riviera
    June 21, 2007 at 2:15 pm

    Yeah, the EPD SWAT team is just like Rosa Parks and Ghandi. Sure.

  16. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    Ghandi and the men in the Alamo had what in common?

    Ghandi and Rosa Parks is a match. Congratulations 2:08. You just won first place in the numb as a hake contest.

  17. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    Ferndale should have paid the $25K. Put me on that jury and the Victorian village would be paying for decades to come.

    What’s with the drugged up zombies at Winco lately? I had to sneak into my car as one followed me from the store calling me mom and clawed at my passenger door. I’m not your mom. Didn’t you notice my facial hair?

  18. Derchoadus
    June 21, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Hey anon 0208PM, the men in the Alamo were land grabbing illegal alien squatters. When the legal authorities showed up to kick ’em out, they answered with bullets.

    How that equates to Gandhi is beyond me.

  19. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    Well Heraldo – they didn’t win that and the police can still use pepper spray. So what they got was a dollar.


  20. Heraldo Riviera
    June 21, 2007 at 5:02 pm

    They got a dollar, but Humboldt County citizens paid $1.5 Million.

    You can thank Roger Rodoni.

  21. Heraldo Riviera
    June 21, 2007 at 5:03 pm

    And they did win.

  22. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 5:16 pm

    The citizens of Humboldt County should have sued those self-righteous snot-nosed trouble-makers for keeping people from entering the office of their legally-elected, if obnoxious, Congressman. Sitting in a circle making noise and joining hands in a specially-designed steel collars to thwart law enforcement personnel, indeed. It was gratifying that they did not get rich as a reward for their thuggish behavior.

    And no, just because thuggish behavior is done by a group of pretty young white women does not make it any less thuggish.

  23. Andrew Bird
    June 21, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    You can’t talk about local government making bad decisions regarding legal issues without including the McKee Tooby Ranch case. Humboldt County has been on the losing end of every decision in this case. In addition to appealing the local rulings, the County Counsel’s office is still trying to nail McKee in the local court, and Judge Watson is demonstratively fed up with it, according to what I hear from those who have sat in on some of the hearings.

    I am not sure why the County will not cut its losses on McKee and let go of it. I’m not sure how much the County has already spent…Rushton and Muller at the Reporter probably know…but McKee probably has a good case to recover from the taxpayers the money he has spent on defending himself from this lawsuit, which was initiated by the county.

  24. Fred
    June 21, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    Heraldo wrote,”And they did win.”.

    As I’ve said before: Just because a jury rules, one way or the other, doesn’t make it right.

    Didn’t that trial go on three times? Just a matter of chance the gals would win eventually.

  25. Heraldo Riviera
    June 21, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    Right or wrong, they did “win” for whatever it’s worth. And there were guys involved, too.

  26. Fred
    June 21, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    Agreed. I guess it doesn’t matter what’s right or wrong, just what the jury decides.

    Then again, we’ll all probably argue, one way or the other, about the jury’s decision [and whether it’s right].

  27. Joe Blow
    June 21, 2007 at 7:10 pm

    these protesters and OJ love jury decisions. they’re almost always right, right?

    Joe Blow

  28. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 8:07 pm

    Thuggish behavior? And what do you call applying pepper spray to the eyes of the protesters? Police work? I call it brutal behavior. It was torture. We are living under the occupation of a paramilitary force. Shut up, pay your taxes. Everything is under control.

    The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper. The Bill of Rights? Forget it. Justice? Maybe, if you can afford it.

  29. Andrew Bird
    June 21, 2007 at 8:17 pm

    Fred…you sound like you are anti-jury. There is another system…it’s call fascism.

  30. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    In the pepper spray case the verdict for their clients was diminimus. They won lawyers fees for themselves.

  31. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 9:59 pm

    Hi andy…I have heard that the County has been asked to appeal the Tooby case by the State, as there will be numerous repurcussions state wide if this case doesn’t end up going the County’s way.

  32. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 10:03 pm

    “…living under the occupation of a paramilitary force. Shut up, pay your taxes. Everything is under control.”

    OMG, snark, snerk, where are the black copters???

    If there’s anything that is just as annoying is a right-wing end of days survivalist, gun totin conspiracy nut, its the “hey dude, my path is righteous so, anything you do to impede my right to protest, even if I shit all over everyone elses rights and property” eco groovy lefties…

  33. Anonymous
    June 21, 2007 at 11:08 pm

    Stupidity annoys me, so we’re even. You use labels such as eco groovy lefties to cover your ignorance of facts and to create a straw man argument. It’s bullshit. When cops become torturers and killers and enough idiots like you defend them then there is no outrage when the president says that the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper and the Bill of Rights gets replaced with the Patriot Act. You’ve got your head way too far up your ass!

  34. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 8:04 am

    The District Attorney was on scene at the Moore shooting,and personally visited the “scene” of the Marsh crime to help his assigned DDA, Mendez, “prepare” the case. Can we expect to see him as a defendant, or just a witness for the plaintiffs?

  35. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 8:38 am

    “Stupidity annoys me, so we’re even.”

    You must really annoy yourself…
    Read the entire post numbnuts. If you arent willing to ackowledge that there are whackjobs on all sides of the spectrum then you are REALLY pissing yourself off…

  36. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 8:39 am

    pepperspray does NOT equal torture.

    You do a disservice to the millions throughout time who have actually been tortured,

  37. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 9:05 am

    it’s so amusing to see the cop wives protecting their little babies from ill words.

    I realize the cops here murdered people “in self defense” because they were so “scared”, but are cops afraid of WORDS as well??

    Do they need their WIVES protecting them from public opinion?

    Suggestion: “SCARED” Cops should get a new job that has less stress… like maybe a cotton candy factory… or a plushie factory …

    Because if WORDS scare them as much as little old ladies and 16 yr old kids do….


    It’s a shame.


  38. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 9:12 am

    Heraldo – you are deranged if you think a one dollar verdict is a “win.” Its a way for a jury to stop the bullshit and make it go away without rewarding the plaintiffs. And if you think the jury would have still split the baby if they knew that 1.5 million would go to the lawyer, then you have been consuming too much of Dr. Ken’s prescriptions.

  39. Heraldo Riviera
    June 22, 2007 at 9:20 am

    Did your crystal ball tell you what the jury would have thought had they known about attorney’s fees?

    Some of the jurors told reporters afterward they wanted to award a lot of money, but that others did not. The dollar was a compromise.

  40. Heraldo Riviera
    June 22, 2007 at 9:21 am

    At any rate, the jurors favored the plaintiffs over the defendants, which is why the county paid attorney’s fees.

  41. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 11:30 am


    If you don’t think pepper spray applied directly to a persons eyes is torture then I suggest you try it on yourself. Be careful, you can damage your eyes.

  42. Heraldo Riviera
    June 22, 2007 at 11:36 am

    Don’t forget to have a cop hold your head between his knees while another one pries your eyelids open before applying the Q-tip of pepper spray. Otherwise you might miss the full affect.

  43. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    “Some of the jurors told reporters afterward they wanted to award a lot of money, but that others did not. The dollar was a compromise”

    Gee Heraldo – get it, even a third jury wasn’t going to give them more than a dollar. Why the compromise? Because they didn’t really have a case and after three attempts the jurors said “when.”

    And it doesn’t take a crystal ball…only common sense and a decent and rational understanding of the legal system

  44. Heraldo Riviera
    June 22, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    If they didn’t have a case the jury would have found for the county.

    Also, the jury was not informed that it was a third trial.

  45. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    I’m not your mom. Didn’t you notice my facial hair?

    His mom probably had a beard. Which would explain why he’s a drugged up zombie.

    Geez, show some sensitivity. The least you could have done was suckle him.

  46. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    “The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.”

    — President George W. Bush

    The United States of America is a goddamned police state. Anyone who won’t face that fact by now is either retarded or a whore.

  47. Carol
    June 22, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    I was neutral in the pepper spray case until I washed the ordeal on Free Speech TV. The pepper spray should be sprayed not swabbed on people’s eyes directly. It was disturbing to watch.

  48. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 3:17 pm

    Carol, I watched the videotape when KEET broadcast it. I watched it very closely. I think your conclusions are incorrect.

    The gentle swabbing of closed eyelids was much more humane than the spraying of the pepper spray directly into the eyes at a distance of only an inch or two.

    Remember, the pepper spray is designed to be propelled to a distance of up to 15 feet. Even if it was only water, the physical force of hitting an eye from a distance of only inches is likely to cause injury.

    Of all the applications of pepper spray that day, only one or two were done by spraying into the eyes. Most were done by carefully swabbing the eyelids with a Q-tip. The damage done might have been far greater if the police had not exercised caution.

    I know that after all the propaganda we have seen and heard, I will be criticized for crediting the police for using caution.

    But if you doubt me, let’s see the videotape again. You will be reminded then of how reluctant the police were to use the pepper-spray, how sincerely they asked the protestors to comply and make its use unneccessary, and how carefully they applied it (except for those one or two exceptions) once there was no alternative consistent with the orders they had received.

  49. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    Sad it is indeed to see a person capable of devising only one memorable phrase.

    “Cop Wives” comes to mind.

    Or did the author steal that phrase, too, and use it endlessly without attribution?

  50. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    Gee again Heraldo – how do you know that they were NOT informed. Were you there or are you using your crystal ball to know what they knew and when they knew it?

    “If they didn’t have a case the jury would have found for the county.”

    Your view of our legal system and how it works is really quite limited and naive!

    And 3:17 – they don’t really care what is on the tape if it conflicts with there predetermined view of the world…how close minded.

  51. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    A writer wrote: “If you don’t think pepper spray applied directly to a persons eyes is torture then I suggest you try it on yourself.”

    Are you not aware that policemen and policewomen in jurisdictions across our nation willingly consent to be pepper sprayed as part of their training?

  52. Heraldo Riviera
    June 22, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    how do you know that they were NOT informed. Were you there or are you using your crystal ball to know what they knew and when they knew it?

    There was a ton of media coverage as you will recall. The fact that it was the third trial was kept from the jury so it wouldn’t influence their decision.

  53. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    You are correct. As part of the certification to use pepper spray and tasers, all officers have to have them used on themselves.

  54. Heraldo Riviera
    June 22, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    The county (defendants) lost this case, and after they lost they asked the judge to throw out the verdict against them.

    From the Eureka Reporter:

    “The defendants are seeking to have the April jury verdict in the trial thrown out and have the case decided in their favor as a matter of law or have a new trial granted. The jury found that Humboldt County and city of Eureka law-enforcement officers used excessive force on nonviolent protesters in 1997 when they swabbed them in the eye areas with pepper spray.”

  55. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    Face it Heraldo – you are making this up as you go along. There was a ton of media. The first, second and third trial. You just can’t admit that you are not Karnac the Magnificent who knows all. Do you really think that this jury was not at all aware of the first two trials? Really? Were you there for jury selection? Really?

    You may convince someone of limited imagination and knowledge that what you say is true, but not me…too much smarter and been there – done that.

    The fact of the matter is that the jurors didn’t think much if anything about that case and ended it with a dollar verdict. Have you ever seen a jury before do that. I have! and they do so because they are either splitting the baby to end it OR think that the plaintiffs are full of it and deserve nothing.

    do you think that you can post facts instead of so much speculation with your next post?

    Bye bye for now…am pulling out other One Dollar verdicts to respond to your next “informed” post.

    Go blow smoke somewhre else.

  56. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 3:50 pm


    Who care about what they asked the judge to do.

    the judge didn’t do it, did he and the verdict stuck.

    My, my your a little too manipulative today aren’t you?

  57. Heraldo Riviera
    June 22, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    Do you really think that this jury was not at all aware of the first two trials?

    Nope. Not what I said.

    Go blow smoke somewhre else.

    And leave my blog to the ignorant masses? No way!

    the judge didn’t do it, did he and the verdict stuck.

    The judge was a woman. So much for your grasp of the facts.

  58. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 3:58 pm


    Does this help? – also the ER 4/29/05

    “Plaintiffs’ attorney Dennis Cunningham said the principle of the case was the primary importance, but he said, “It’s pretty hard to swallow the (jury) decision that says (the plaintiffs) suffered no harm.”

    He said he felt the verdict was a compromise “from the emotive state of the jurors.”

    “It’s an imperfect system in an imperfect world,” Cunningham said…..

    The plaintiffs should have been given substantial awards, Serra said.

    “I’m half happy and half pissed-off,” Serra said. “(The plaintiffs) should have gotten $10,000 a piece.”

    “It’s apparent the jury agreed with the former sheriff (Dennis Lewis) and current sheriff (Gary Philp) that use of pepper spray did not cause any injury,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Nancy Delaney.

  59. Heraldo Riviera
    June 22, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    Well, Nancy Delaney got paid for her services, but not because she won the case.

  60. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    Heraldo – just can’t admit to losing a point can you?

    Actually, you do not know squat about defending cases (so you could be brainless Dr. Ken, but…)
    The fact that it hung 2 times and the plaintiffs were given nomimal damages is a “win” for a defendant. Very rarely do you get an outright walk on these types of cases. PLUS….had the county not pulled the plug it would have been doubtful that attorneys fees A)would have been awarded at all or B) awarded in that amount.

    I do recall reading about a case called Choate v County of Orange in which our state court said in 2000 that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees to plaintiffs because damages awarded were de minimis (aka nominal – One Dollar) and Benton v Oregon Student Assistance Comm’n which is a 9th Circuit 2005 (you know how conservative the 9th is don’t you?) Which said the same a lawsuit must achieve “other tangible results” besides nominal damages to justify award of fees.

    This is why they fought to try and get the court to issue an injunction. Because they got nothing but 1 dollar and no injunction, they were hard pressed under the 9th circuit case and state case to get anything and were probably going to get nothing or next to nothing in fees. It is a really good thing for them that the board caved in on this one. Unfortunately, it was the wrong time to cave in and they probably wouldn’t have had to pay at all if you ACTUALLY READ those cases Heraldo.

    If you can’t find them on findlaw.com, I will get you the numbers.

  61. Anonymous
    June 22, 2007 at 9:53 pm

    KEET showed the whole videotape of the entire pepper-spray incident in Congressman Riggs’ office. KEET showed it more than once.

    Other news organizations showed heavily-edited versions of the videotape of the pepper-spray incident. Perhaps in editing the videotape, some of them injected some editorial bias.

    When I watch Free Speech TV, I usually notice a rather pronounced bias. It’s like the mirror-image of the bias projected by Faux News.

  62. Heraldo Riviera
    June 22, 2007 at 10:07 pm

    According to one juror it was the video footage that convinced them the police used excessive force.

    From the North Coast Journal:

    [Defense attorney Nancy] Delaney said that it was her understanding that the jury was originally split 5-3 in favor of law enforcement when deliberations began early last week.

    Juror Conni Chandler of Hayward, an administrative assistant for consulting firm Deloitte & Touche, partially agreed with Delaney’s characterization of the jury’s deliberation. She said that, though there was a 5-3 majority for the defense when deliberations began, supporters of the plaintiffs — of which she said she was one — were able to persuade members of the other side to switch positions.

    “Actually, two of the people started to come over to our side even before the compromise was met,” she said. “They kept watching the tape and they changed their minds. One of them actually wanted to award — she thought along the same lines as I did, she thought they deserved money.”

    Chandler said that about an hour before the decision, the jurors reached a consensus that the police officers did, in fact, use excessive force about an hour. When discussions turned to monetary damages, though, Chandler said that she and the other supporters of the plaintiffs relented.

    “They said, `We feel like [the plaintiffs] do not deserve any money, because they were trespassing and they broke the law,'” she said. “That was their whole argument. I think we had to compromise.”

  63. Carol
    June 23, 2007 at 9:05 am

    I am glad I wasn’t a member of the jury on this case.

  64. Anonymous
    June 23, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    Too bad you are a member of the Humboldt Democratic Central Commitee, Carol.

  65. Larry Evans
    June 24, 2007 at 3:17 pm

    Just became aware of this whole “blog” deal and find it exciting to be able to discuss/debate ideas, politics and the issues of the day.

    It is disappointing to find some of the postings containing the most juvenile slurs and adolescent name-calling to be posted anonymously. I can understand the need for anonymity by some, but that option should obligate the writer to keep a civil “pen”. I can only assume that the purveyors of name-calling either lack the courage of their convictions or simply lack courage. (I refer to 1:26 and 11:08 on 6/21 & 8:38 on 6/22) Kind of like smacking someone in the back of the head in a crowd in a dark room. Another possibility is that the writers of these weak postings really are adolescents and if their parents found out they were talking that way they would have their mouths washed out with soap.

    On the subject at hand I see that there is a sad lack of understanding of the legal system in this country. This system, profoundly flawed as it is at dispensing equal justice for all, nevertheless offers opportunities for redress of grievances. First there is the criminal courts where law breakers are subject to both monetary fines and/or incarceration. Then there are the civil courts where monetary awards/settlements and injunctive relief are available.

    It does not always take a big monetary judgement or an injunction to achieve ones ends in a civil case– sometimes just the potential of going to court is enough of an incentive to curb unacceptable behavior.

    In the case of police agencies behaving badly it is imperative that they always be held to the highest standards of conduct. When the police fail to act to those standards it is only right– in fact fundamentally American– that they be held to account.

    It is also a disapointment when Americans drop to their knees in abeyance to authority. It is lucky for us all that such a sentiment was not the main force during the revolt from the English royalists. Down the Torries!

    It is evident that many of those posting comments fail to understand the purpose, let alone the proud tradition, of civil disobedience in this country. When a person of conscience decides that the actions of government or a group is unethical or illegal, then that person can choose to break the law in an effort to obstruct the normal business of the government or group. In doing so, they are making a conscious choice to face the consequences of their action as in the previously mentioned montary fines or incarceration. They may also face civil judgements.

    Under the American Constitution, cruel and unusual punishment is not allowed. Pepper-spray is a defensive weapon carried by police to subdue violent attacks in a (hopefully) non-lethal way. The pepper sprayed demonstrators were not violent and did not attack anyone. Watch the video and see that while the staff of the Congressmember-turned-lobbyist Riggs were annoyed and angry, they never showed any signs of fear of being attacked. And clearly, by the time the police arrived, the demonstrators were shackeld and unable to attack anyone. The use of the pepper spray, applied outside the manufacturers instructions and the existing standard operating procedures for California police agencies was clearly intended as torture in an effort to punish the offenders without the sanction of law. There were certainly other options available to detach them from their anchor. The fact that this technique has not been employed since those shameful incidents is proof of the win.

    OKAY–that was fun–HAPPY TRAILS–larry evans

  66. Anonymous
    June 24, 2007 at 10:31 pm

    Yeah but, the cops “gently” swabbed the tear gas on the eyes of the nonviolent protesters, Larry Evans, don’t you see? They was bein’ gentle! They wasn’t tryin’ to torture anybody. They was usin’ gentle persuasion. It’s not like they was tryin’ to be cruel and inhuman. They are only cops after all. They was bein’ as gentle as they knew how. It’s hard to be gentle when you got a Q-tip and you’re holden’ on to your pepper spray and your zip ties and…

  67. Anonymous
    June 26, 2007 at 1:54 am

    Watch the videotape of the swabbing. You will see that your sarcasm, cleverly displayed though it may be, is nonetheless misplaced.

  68. Anonymous
    June 26, 2007 at 5:57 am

    You mean, ahem…. They weren’t bein’ gentle? But…. they’re cops. They were just doin’ they’re duty. I mean, uh, if a bunch of beautiful eco-groovy activists lock themselves down in your building, who are you going to call? You can’t call Fred? Fred would just try to get a date. At least he would if they wasn’t lesbians. Can’t be too careful, eh Fred?

  69. Anonymous
    June 26, 2007 at 6:32 am

    My sarcasm may be misplaced. But my anger is not. Money is free speech and equal treatment under the law is confined to those who can afford it.

  70. Anonymous
    June 26, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    Marx is dead. Long live Anonymous 6:32!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s