US Anti-Police Protests and Riots Thread III

[The Two Jerseys]

Cops arrest Black man for trying to cash a check at his own bank

Joe Morrow had just finished a 12-hour shift as an "order picker" at a grocery distributor in Hopkins last year when he stopped at a U.S. Bank branch in Columbia Heights to cash his paycheck.

Despite having an account with the bank and showing his ID, that simple transaction led to a call to police, threats of arrest, and Morrow being placed in handcuffs.

A bank manager told officers he suspected the check was a fake, but police body camera video shows he only called Morrow's employer for verification after the 23-year-old Black man was removed from his office.

The check was, in fact, real.

U.S. Bank disputed Morrow's allegations of racial profiling but quietly agreed to a confidential settlement two weeks after 5 INVESTIGATES started asking questions about the incident...

U.S. Bank reached a confidential settlement with Morrow two weeks later, but continues to defend how its employees handled the incident.

"After a thorough internal investigation, there is nothing to indicate that the customer's race or ethnicity played a factor in the service he received at this branch," Henderson said last week.

Not sure how the cops are the bad guys here...

[Vassenor]

Cops arrest Black man for trying to cash a check at his own bank

Joe Morrow had just finished a 12-hour shift as an "order picker" at a grocery distributor in Hopkins last year when he stopped at a U.S. Bank branch in Columbia Heights to cash his paycheck.

Despite having an account with the bank and showing his ID, that simple transaction led to a call to police, threats of arrest, and Morrow being placed in handcuffs.

A bank manager told officers he suspected the check was a fake, but police body camera video shows he only called Morrow's employer for verification after the 23-year-old Black man was removed from his office.

The check was, in fact, real.

U.S. Bank disputed Morrow's allegations of racial profiling but quietly agreed to a confidential settlement two weeks after 5 INVESTIGATES started asking questions about the incident...

U.S. Bank reached a confidential settlement with Morrow two weeks later, but continues to defend how its employees handled the incident.

"After a thorough internal investigation, there is nothing to indicate that the customer's race or ethnicity played a factor in the service he received at this branch," Henderson said last week.

Not sure how the cops are the bad guys here...

Assuming that a check being cashed by a black guy must be fake? Keeping in mind that "he must have been trying to pass a fake bill" is what got George Floyd murdered?

[The Two Jerseys]

Not sure how the cops are the bad guys here...

Assuming that a check being cashed by a black guy must be fake? Keeping in mind that "he must have been trying to pass a fake bill" is what got George Floyd murdered?

The bank manager is the one who assumed the check was fake.

[Ifreann]

Assuming that a check being cashed by a black guy must be fake? Keeping in mind that "he must have been trying to pass a fake bill" is what got George Floyd murdered?

The bank manager is the one who assumed the check was fake.

And the police were the ones who cuffed Morrow on the say so of this manager.

[The Two Jerseys]

The bank manager is the one who assumed the check was fake.

And the police were the ones who cuffed Morrow on the say so of this manager.

Yes, because bank managers are better at identifying bad checks than patrolman are.

[Ifreann]

And the police were the ones who cuffed Morrow on the say so of this manager.

Yes, because bank managers are better at identifying bad checks than patrolman are.

Clearly not. And we will note that this matter was resolved when Morrow's employer was called. So the police didn't have to confirm themselves that the cheque was legitimate, they could have just not cuffed him and had his employer called.

[-Astoria-]

And the police were the ones who cuffed Morrow on the say so of this manager.

Yes, because bank managers are better at identifying bad checks than patrolman are.

Seems not in this case.

[Kowani]

Lousiana keeps man in prison despite two separate court orders mandating his release

We don't know where Bobby Sneed will celebrate his 75th birthday this weekend, but two locations look increasingly likely: either the Louisiana State Penitentiary, also known as Angola, or a nearby jail. He has counted the majority of his milestones behind prison walls, having been incarcerated for more than 47 years for his role in a 1974 burglary.

This year was going to be different. The Louisiana Board of Pardons and Committee on Parole voted unanimously to release him months ago. Yet Sneed has remained in prison long past his March 29, 2021, release date and despite a November 18 court decision ordering his release.

Another ruling came down early last week: Sneed must be freed, a judge said. And as he was waiting by the gate for pickup, prison officials again refused to release him, instead rearresting him and transferring him to West Feliciana Parish Detention Center in St. Francisville, Louisiana. It was an additional plot twist in Sneed's legal odyssey, set in motion by the Committee on Parole trying to undo its own decision and violating state law in the process. Sneed's story highlights how far some government agents will go to keep people locked up—flouting the same legal standards they are charged with upholding, even after they've publicly conceded the person poses no danger to society.

"The 'minimum requirements of due process' in the parole revocation context require 'disclosure of the evidence against him,' the 'right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,' a 'neutral and detached' hearing body, and 'a written statement by the factfinders as to evidence relied on,'" wrote Judge Ron Johnson of the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish. "Because it is undisputed that no such procedures were followed when Mr. Sneed's parole was stripped…this Court finds that [he] was deprived…of due process of law."

In mid-March, not long after the Committee on Parole approved Sneed's release in a hearing that lasted 17 minutes, he collapsed in one of the prison dormitories. He was admitted to the infirmary, where he allegedly tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. But there was no complete chain of custody on those urine samples, and thus no way to confirm to whom they actually belonged. And while the doctor's notes said that Sneed admitted to drug use, she later told Thomas Frampton, Sneed's attorney, that she wasn't sure why that was in her notes, because Sneed never told her that. He had been in and out of consciousness, unable to speak for himself.

Sneed maintained his innocence, and a disciplinary committee ruled in his favor. Yet that didn't stop the Committee on Parole from illegally moving to revoke his freedom during a brief May hearing, long after his release date had come and gone. At the time, he was supposed to be home with family. Instead, he sat in solitary confinement. To avoid complying with the second court ruling ordering Sneed released, the Committee on Parole issued an arrest warrant Friday on another contraband charge.

This was the same panel that already acknowledged that Sneed no longer poses a risk to the community. (Sneed, a Vietnam veteran, suffered a stroke in 2005, after which point he had to relearn how to walk and talk.) But what if he is guilty of using contraband? Should that change their determination? "I don't believe that there's any threat to public safety….By keeping him incarcerated, at his age and with [his] medical conditions, it's more costly with very finite taxpayer dollars to keep him [locked up] than to help him get substance abuse treatment," says Kerry Myers, deputy director of the Louisiana Parole Project. "What's at stake is: What's the best use of resources?"

Prior to that May rescission hearing, Francis Abbott, executive director of the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Committee on Parole, told me that there was good reason to move forward as they did. "We've got documents that were submitted to the board that are not open to the public," he said. Sneed's legal team was also barred from seeing those documents. It was only after the hearing that the evidence—detailing, for instance, the doctor's comments on Sneed's alleged drug use—was provided to them. That paperwork allowed Frampton to track down the doctor who treated Bobby: the one who conceded that Sneed hadn't, in fact, admitted to anything. But Frampton wasn't able to counter the government's claims during the hearing, as he had not yet been provided with the basics.

That hearing, which I observed via Zoom, failed to incorporate basic legal standards, with the defendant unaware of the supposed evidence against him and with his team not allowed to call witnesses. "Indeed, Respondents' position was that they did not need to afford Mr. Sneed a proper revocation hearing," notes Judge Johnson in last week's decision.

His ruling came in response to Sneed's second federal civil rights lawsuit against Abbott and Tim Hooper, the warden at Angola. To circumvent the first suit, the government's motion-to-dismiss filing asserted that Sneed "failed to allege or show that Director Abbott possessed any actual statutory authority to take any official action with respect to [Sneed's] parole status or that he actually did so." That argument and admission would circle back to haunt them once the public records were released. "Hold off on any paperwork," Abbott wrote to Whitney Troxclair, a parole administrator, on March 26 at 6:50 a.m., three days before Sneed's scheduled release. About an hour later, he then forwarded that email to Sheryl Ranatza, the Parole Board chair, apprising her of what he had done. "FYI Granted last Thursday and was scheduled to release Monday." In other words, the government seemingly admits that Abbott did not have the statutory authority to stop Sneed's release. And yet it appears that's what he did.

"Thanks for your continued interest in this matter, unfortunately we will not be commenting as this is an ongoing legal matter," Abbott told Reason last week.

In 1974, Sneed stood guard while three of his accomplices robbed a home and ultimately killed one of the residents who lived there. Though he was two blocks away when that murder occurred, he was charged with principal to commit second-degree murder—a conviction that was overturned after he successfully petitioned for the court to vacate it. The charge, which is similar to the felony murder rule, allowed the government to prosecute him for murder while also conceding he didn't kill anyone, on the grounds that it occurred during the commission of a related crime. He was re-convicted in 1987. "Mr. Sneed is deeply remorseful for his role in the murder of Mr. Jones," reads Sneed's suit. "His incarceration has given him time to reflect on his role in the offense and how he could have prevented the senseless act of violence that occurred." Out of the six defendants involved in that burglary, Sneed is the only one who remains in prison.

Following the prison's renewed refusal to set Sneed free, Frampton filed a motion to hold the state officials in contempt. So months after the government openly recognized that Sneed is no longer a hazard to the community, we'll soon find out if they'll succeed in clawing him back to prison for yet another birthday.

[Stellar Colonies]

Lousiana keeps man in prison despite two separate court orders mandating his release

We don't know where Bobby Sneed will celebrate his 75th birthday this weekend, but two locations look increasingly likely: either the Louisiana State Penitentiary, also known as Angola, or a nearby jail. He has counted the majority of his milestones behind prison walls, having been incarcerated for more than 47 years for his role in a 1974 burglary.

This year was going to be different. The Louisiana Board of Pardons and Committee on Parole voted unanimously to release him months ago. Yet Sneed has remained in prison long past his March 29, 2021, release date and despite a November 18 court decision ordering his release.

Another ruling came down early last week: Sneed must be freed, a judge said. And as he was waiting by the gate for pickup, prison officials again refused to release him, instead rearresting him and transferring him to West Feliciana Parish Detention Center in St. Francisville, Louisiana. It was an additional plot twist in Sneed's legal odyssey, set in motion by the Committee on Parole trying to undo its own decision and violating state law in the process. Sneed's story highlights how far some government agents will go to keep people locked up—flouting the same legal standards they are charged with upholding, even after they've publicly conceded the person poses no danger to society.

"The 'minimum requirements of due process' in the parole revocation context require 'disclosure of the evidence against him,' the 'right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,' a 'neutral and detached' hearing body, and 'a written statement by the factfinders as to evidence relied on,'" wrote Judge Ron Johnson of the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish. "Because it is undisputed that no such procedures were followed when Mr. Sneed's parole was stripped…this Court finds that [he] was deprived…of due process of law."

In mid-March, not long after the Committee on Parole approved Sneed's release in a hearing that lasted 17 minutes, he collapsed in one of the prison dormitories. He was admitted to the infirmary, where he allegedly tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. But there was no complete chain of custody on those urine samples, and thus no way to confirm to whom they actually belonged. And while the doctor's notes said that Sneed admitted to drug use, she later told Thomas Frampton, Sneed's attorney, that she wasn't sure why that was in her notes, because Sneed never told her that. He had been in and out of consciousness, unable to speak for himself.

Sneed maintained his innocence, and a disciplinary committee ruled in his favor. Yet that didn't stop the Committee on Parole from illegally moving to revoke his freedom during a brief May hearing, long after his release date had come and gone. At the time, he was supposed to be home with family. Instead, he sat in solitary confinement. To avoid complying with the second court ruling ordering Sneed released, the Committee on Parole issued an arrest warrant Friday on another contraband charge.

This was the same panel that already acknowledged that Sneed no longer poses a risk to the community. (Sneed, a Vietnam veteran, suffered a stroke in 2005, after which point he had to relearn how to walk and talk.) But what if he is guilty of using contraband? Should that change their determination? "I don't believe that there's any threat to public safety….By keeping him incarcerated, at his age and with [his] medical conditions, it's more costly with very finite taxpayer dollars to keep him [locked up] than to help him get substance abuse treatment," says Kerry Myers, deputy director of the Louisiana Parole Project. "What's at stake is: What's the best use of resources?"

Prior to that May rescission hearing, Francis Abbott, executive director of the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Committee on Parole, told me that there was good reason to move forward as they did. "We've got documents that were submitted to the board that are not open to the public," he said. Sneed's legal team was also barred from seeing those documents. It was only after the hearing that the evidence—detailing, for instance, the doctor's comments on Sneed's alleged drug use—was provided to them. That paperwork allowed Frampton to track down the doctor who treated Bobby: the one who conceded that Sneed hadn't, in fact, admitted to anything. But Frampton wasn't able to counter the government's claims during the hearing, as he had not yet been provided with the basics.

That hearing, which I observed via Zoom, failed to incorporate basic legal standards, with the defendant unaware of the supposed evidence against him and with his team not allowed to call witnesses. "Indeed, Respondents' position was that they did not need to afford Mr. Sneed a proper revocation hearing," notes Judge Johnson in last week's decision.

His ruling came in response to Sneed's second federal civil rights lawsuit against Abbott and Tim Hooper, the warden at Angola. To circumvent the first suit, the government's motion-to-dismiss filing asserted that Sneed "failed to allege or show that Director Abbott possessed any actual statutory authority to take any official action with respect to [Sneed's] parole status or that he actually did so." That argument and admission would circle back to haunt them once the public records were released. "Hold off on any paperwork," Abbott wrote to Whitney Troxclair, a parole administrator, on March 26 at 6:50 a.m., three days before Sneed's scheduled release. About an hour later, he then forwarded that email to Sheryl Ranatza, the Parole Board chair, apprising her of what he had done. "FYI Granted last Thursday and was scheduled to release Monday." In other words, the government seemingly admits that Abbott did not have the statutory authority to stop Sneed's release. And yet it appears that's what he did.

"Thanks for your continued interest in this matter, unfortunately we will not be commenting as this is an ongoing legal matter," Abbott told Reason last week.

In 1974, Sneed stood guard while three of his accomplices robbed a home and ultimately killed one of the residents who lived there. Though he was two blocks away when that murder occurred, he was charged with principal to commit second-degree murder—a conviction that was overturned after he successfully petitioned for the court to vacate it. The charge, which is similar to the felony murder rule, allowed the government to prosecute him for murder while also conceding he didn't kill anyone, on the grounds that it occurred during the commission of a related crime. He was re-convicted in 1987. "Mr. Sneed is deeply remorseful for his role in the murder of Mr. Jones," reads Sneed's suit. "His incarceration has given him time to reflect on his role in the offense and how he could have prevented the senseless act of violence that occurred." Out of the six defendants involved in that burglary, Sneed is the only one who remains in prison.

Following the prison's renewed refusal to set Sneed free, Frampton filed a motion to hold the state officials in contempt. So months after the government openly recognized that Sneed is no longer a hazard to the community, we'll soon find out if they'll succeed in clawing him back to prison for yet another birthday.

I can only imagine how 4chan is reacting to his last name.

[Lanoraie II]

I can only imagine how 4chan is reacting to his last name.

I went to check and I'm surprisingly disappointed.

[Page]

Lousiana keeps man in prison despite two separate court orders mandating his release

We don't know where Bobby Sneed will celebrate his 75th birthday this weekend, but two locations look increasingly likely: either the Louisiana State Penitentiary, also known as Angola, or a nearby jail. He has counted the majority of his milestones behind prison walls, having been incarcerated for more than 47 years for his role in a 1974 burglary.

This year was going to be different. The Louisiana Board of Pardons and Committee on Parole voted unanimously to release him months ago. Yet Sneed has remained in prison long past his March 29, 2021, release date and despite a November 18 court decision ordering his release.

Another ruling came down early last week: Sneed must be freed, a judge said. And as he was waiting by the gate for pickup, prison officials again refused to release him, instead rearresting him and transferring him to West Feliciana Parish Detention Center in St. Francisville, Louisiana. It was an additional plot twist in Sneed's legal odyssey, set in motion by the Committee on Parole trying to undo its own decision and violating state law in the process. Sneed's story highlights how far some government agents will go to keep people locked up—flouting the same legal standards they are charged with upholding, even after they've publicly conceded the person poses no danger to society.

"The 'minimum requirements of due process' in the parole revocation context require 'disclosure of the evidence against him,' the 'right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,' a 'neutral and detached' hearing body, and 'a written statement by the factfinders as to evidence relied on,'" wrote Judge Ron Johnson of the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish. "Because it is undisputed that no such procedures were followed when Mr. Sneed's parole was stripped…this Court finds that [he] was deprived…of due process of law."

In mid-March, not long after the Committee on Parole approved Sneed's release in a hearing that lasted 17 minutes, he collapsed in one of the prison dormitories. He was admitted to the infirmary, where he allegedly tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. But there was no complete chain of custody on those urine samples, and thus no way to confirm to whom they actually belonged. And while the doctor's notes said that Sneed admitted to drug use, she later told Thomas Frampton, Sneed's attorney, that she wasn't sure why that was in her notes, because Sneed never told her that. He had been in and out of consciousness, unable to speak for himself.

Sneed maintained his innocence, and a disciplinary committee ruled in his favor. Yet that didn't stop the Committee on Parole from illegally moving to revoke his freedom during a brief May hearing, long after his release date had come and gone. At the time, he was supposed to be home with family. Instead, he sat in solitary confinement. To avoid complying with the second court ruling ordering Sneed released, the Committee on Parole issued an arrest warrant Friday on another contraband charge.

This was the same panel that already acknowledged that Sneed no longer poses a risk to the community. (Sneed, a Vietnam veteran, suffered a stroke in 2005, after which point he had to relearn how to walk and talk.) But what if he is guilty of using contraband? Should that change their determination? "I don't believe that there's any threat to public safety….By keeping him incarcerated, at his age and with [his] medical conditions, it's more costly with very finite taxpayer dollars to keep him [locked up] than to help him get substance abuse treatment," says Kerry Myers, deputy director of the Louisiana Parole Project. "What's at stake is: What's the best use of resources?"

Prior to that May rescission hearing, Francis Abbott, executive director of the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Committee on Parole, told me that there was good reason to move forward as they did. "We've got documents that were submitted to the board that are not open to the public," he said. Sneed's legal team was also barred from seeing those documents. It was only after the hearing that the evidence—detailing, for instance, the doctor's comments on Sneed's alleged drug use—was provided to them. That paperwork allowed Frampton to track down the doctor who treated Bobby: the one who conceded that Sneed hadn't, in fact, admitted to anything. But Frampton wasn't able to counter the government's claims during the hearing, as he had not yet been provided with the basics.

That hearing, which I observed via Zoom, failed to incorporate basic legal standards, with the defendant unaware of the supposed evidence against him and with his team not allowed to call witnesses. "Indeed, Respondents' position was that they did not need to afford Mr. Sneed a proper revocation hearing," notes Judge Johnson in last week's decision.

His ruling came in response to Sneed's second federal civil rights lawsuit against Abbott and Tim Hooper, the warden at Angola. To circumvent the first suit, the government's motion-to-dismiss filing asserted that Sneed "failed to allege or show that Director Abbott possessed any actual statutory authority to take any official action with respect to [Sneed's] parole status or that he actually did so." That argument and admission would circle back to haunt them once the public records were released. "Hold off on any paperwork," Abbott wrote to Whitney Troxclair, a parole administrator, on March 26 at 6:50 a.m., three days before Sneed's scheduled release. About an hour later, he then forwarded that email to Sheryl Ranatza, the Parole Board chair, apprising her of what he had done. "FYI Granted last Thursday and was scheduled to release Monday." In other words, the government seemingly admits that Abbott did not have the statutory authority to stop Sneed's release. And yet it appears that's what he did.

"Thanks for your continued interest in this matter, unfortunately we will not be commenting as this is an ongoing legal matter," Abbott told Reason last week.

In 1974, Sneed stood guard while three of his accomplices robbed a home and ultimately killed one of the residents who lived there. Though he was two blocks away when that murder occurred, he was charged with principal to commit second-degree murder—a conviction that was overturned after he successfully petitioned for the court to vacate it. The charge, which is similar to the felony murder rule, allowed the government to prosecute him for murder while also conceding he didn't kill anyone, on the grounds that it occurred during the commission of a related crime. He was re-convicted in 1987. "Mr. Sneed is deeply remorseful for his role in the murder of Mr. Jones," reads Sneed's suit. "His incarceration has given him time to reflect on his role in the offense and how he could have prevented the senseless act of violence that occurred." Out of the six defendants involved in that burglary, Sneed is the only one who remains in prison.

Following the prison's renewed refusal to set Sneed free, Frampton filed a motion to hold the state officials in contempt. So months after the government openly recognized that Sneed is no longer a hazard to the community, we'll soon find out if they'll succeed in clawing him back to prison for yet another birthday.

As far as I'm concerned, if one's release from prison is ordered by a judge and the prison officials refuse to comply, they ought to be considered no legally different than a random psycho with a kidnapping victim chained up in their basement, and the same degree of violence that would be acceptable for the kidnapping victim to escape from the psycho dude's basement should be acceptable for this man to assert his own freedom.

Obviously, the world doesn't work that way. But it should. I know if that guy did use violence to escape and I was a juror on his next trial, I would acquit him without hesitation. I would 12 Angry Men the rest of the jury into agreeing with me.

[Ifreann]

Lousiana keeps man in prison despite two separate court orders mandating his release

We don't know where Bobby Sneed will celebrate his 75th birthday this weekend, but two locations look increasingly likely: either the Louisiana State Penitentiary, also known as Angola, or a nearby jail. He has counted the majority of his milestones behind prison walls, having been incarcerated for more than 47 years for his role in a 1974 burglary.

This year was going to be different. The Louisiana Board of Pardons and Committee on Parole voted unanimously to release him months ago. Yet Sneed has remained in prison long past his March 29, 2021, release date and despite a November 18 court decision ordering his release.

Another ruling came down early last week: Sneed must be freed, a judge said. And as he was waiting by the gate for pickup, prison officials again refused to release him, instead rearresting him and transferring him to West Feliciana Parish Detention Center in St. Francisville, Louisiana. It was an additional plot twist in Sneed's legal odyssey, set in motion by the Committee on Parole trying to undo its own decision and violating state law in the process. Sneed's story highlights how far some government agents will go to keep people locked up—flouting the same legal standards they are charged with upholding, even after they've publicly conceded the person poses no danger to society.

"The 'minimum requirements of due process' in the parole revocation context require 'disclosure of the evidence against him,' the 'right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,' a 'neutral and detached' hearing body, and 'a written statement by the factfinders as to evidence relied on,'" wrote Judge Ron Johnson of the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish. "Because it is undisputed that no such procedures were followed when Mr. Sneed's parole was stripped…this Court finds that [he] was deprived…of due process of law."

In mid-March, not long after the Committee on Parole approved Sneed's release in a hearing that lasted 17 minutes, he collapsed in one of the prison dormitories. He was admitted to the infirmary, where he allegedly tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. But there was no complete chain of custody on those urine samples, and thus no way to confirm to whom they actually belonged. And while the doctor's notes said that Sneed admitted to drug use, she later told Thomas Frampton, Sneed's attorney, that she wasn't sure why that was in her notes, because Sneed never told her that. He had been in and out of consciousness, unable to speak for himself.

Sneed maintained his innocence, and a disciplinary committee ruled in his favor. Yet that didn't stop the Committee on Parole from illegally moving to revoke his freedom during a brief May hearing, long after his release date had come and gone. At the time, he was supposed to be home with family. Instead, he sat in solitary confinement. To avoid complying with the second court ruling ordering Sneed released, the Committee on Parole issued an arrest warrant Friday on another contraband charge.

This was the same panel that already acknowledged that Sneed no longer poses a risk to the community. (Sneed, a Vietnam veteran, suffered a stroke in 2005, after which point he had to relearn how to walk and talk.) But what if he is guilty of using contraband? Should that change their determination? "I don't believe that there's any threat to public safety….By keeping him incarcerated, at his age and with [his] medical conditions, it's more costly with very finite taxpayer dollars to keep him [locked up] than to help him get substance abuse treatment," says Kerry Myers, deputy director of the Louisiana Parole Project. "What's at stake is: What's the best use of resources?"

Prior to that May rescission hearing, Francis Abbott, executive director of the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Committee on Parole, told me that there was good reason to move forward as they did. "We've got documents that were submitted to the board that are not open to the public," he said. Sneed's legal team was also barred from seeing those documents. It was only after the hearing that the evidence—detailing, for instance, the doctor's comments on Sneed's alleged drug use—was provided to them. That paperwork allowed Frampton to track down the doctor who treated Bobby: the one who conceded that Sneed hadn't, in fact, admitted to anything. But Frampton wasn't able to counter the government's claims during the hearing, as he had not yet been provided with the basics.

That hearing, which I observed via Zoom, failed to incorporate basic legal standards, with the defendant unaware of the supposed evidence against him and with his team not allowed to call witnesses. "Indeed, Respondents' position was that they did not need to afford Mr. Sneed a proper revocation hearing," notes Judge Johnson in last week's decision.

His ruling came in response to Sneed's second federal civil rights lawsuit against Abbott and Tim Hooper, the warden at Angola. To circumvent the first suit, the government's motion-to-dismiss filing asserted that Sneed "failed to allege or show that Director Abbott possessed any actual statutory authority to take any official action with respect to [Sneed's] parole status or that he actually did so." That argument and admission would circle back to haunt them once the public records were released. "Hold off on any paperwork," Abbott wrote to Whitney Troxclair, a parole administrator, on March 26 at 6:50 a.m., three days before Sneed's scheduled release. About an hour later, he then forwarded that email to Sheryl Ranatza, the Parole Board chair, apprising her of what he had done. "FYI Granted last Thursday and was scheduled to release Monday." In other words, the government seemingly admits that Abbott did not have the statutory authority to stop Sneed's release. And yet it appears that's what he did.

"Thanks for your continued interest in this matter, unfortunately we will not be commenting as this is an ongoing legal matter," Abbott told Reason last week.

In 1974, Sneed stood guard while three of his accomplices robbed a home and ultimately killed one of the residents who lived there. Though he was two blocks away when that murder occurred, he was charged with principal to commit second-degree murder—a conviction that was overturned after he successfully petitioned for the court to vacate it. The charge, which is similar to the felony murder rule, allowed the government to prosecute him for murder while also conceding he didn't kill anyone, on the grounds that it occurred during the commission of a related crime. He was re-convicted in 1987. "Mr. Sneed is deeply remorseful for his role in the murder of Mr. Jones," reads Sneed's suit. "His incarceration has given him time to reflect on his role in the offense and how he could have prevented the senseless act of violence that occurred." Out of the six defendants involved in that burglary, Sneed is the only one who remains in prison.

Following the prison's renewed refusal to set Sneed free, Frampton filed a motion to hold the state officials in contempt. So months after the government openly recognized that Sneed is no longer a hazard to the community, we'll soon find out if they'll succeed in clawing him back to prison for yet another birthday.

As far as I'm concerned, if one's release from prison is ordered by a judge and the prison officials refuse to comply, they ought to be considered no legally different than a random psycho with a kidnapping victim chained up in their basement, and the same degree of violence that would be acceptable for the kidnapping victim to escape from the psycho dude's basement should be acceptable for this man to assert his own freedom.

Obviously, the world doesn't work that way. But it should. I know if that guy did use violence to escape and I was a juror on his next trial, I would acquit him without hesitation. I would 12 Angry Men the rest of the jury into agreeing with me.

There are no doubt several practical impediments, but logically it should be permissible for local upstanding citizens to force entry to the prison and walk out with Bobby Sneed.

[Des-Bal]

Clearly not. And we will note that this matter was resolved when Morrow's employer was called. So the police didn't have to confirm themselves that the cheque was legitimate, they could have just not cuffed him and had his employer called.

Clearly not is an invalid conclusion, you're apparently assuming that if a bank manager is capable of making a mistake then a patrolman is either no worse or better. Police came because of a call that someone was trying to pass a suspect check and refusing to leave, they detained the guy on suspicion and then put him in handcuffs after he in his words, stood up in anger and quickly walked towards the bank manager and officers.

Worth noting: He was never arrested. The police didn't assume shit here they responded to a call, made sure the involved parties didn't start fighting, when it became apparent there wasn't a crime being committed they left.

Is the goal here that they should show up, determine the suspect is black and then just leave assuming everything is fine? Feels like an overcorrection.

[Page]

As far as I'm concerned, if one's release from prison is ordered by a judge and the prison officials refuse to comply, they ought to be considered no legally different than a random psycho with a kidnapping victim chained up in their basement, and the same degree of violence that would be acceptable for the kidnapping victim to escape from the psycho dude's basement should be acceptable for this man to assert his own freedom.

Obviously, the world doesn't work that way. But it should. I know if that guy did use violence to escape and I was a juror on his next trial, I would acquit him without hesitation. I would 12 Angry Men the rest of the jury into agreeing with me.

There are no doubt several practical impediments, but logically it should be permissible for local upstanding citizens to force entry to the prison and walk out with Bobby Sneed.

I keep wishing to see a militia organize to liberate the migrants in ICE detention. I don't wish for any violence, I just like the mental image of one hundred people with AR-15's standing outside of these facilities and ordering ICE to put down their weapons and walk out with their hands up. Then all the prisoners are escorted to a secret location, given food and money, and sent individually on their way to various sanctuary cities.

In the real world that would never work but it's a really beautiful fantasy in my mind.

[Kowani]

Jury deliberations have begun in the trial of Kim Potter, the ex-police officer who killed Dianne Wright

[American Legionaries]

There are no doubt several practical impediments, but logically it should be permissible for local upstanding citizens to force entry to the prison and walk out with Bobby Sneed.

I keep wishing to see a militia organize to liberate the migrants in ICE detention. I don't wish for any violence, I just like the mental image of one hundred people with AR-15's standing outside of these facilities and ordering ICE to put down their weapons and walk out with their hands up. Then all the prisoners are escorted to a secret location, given food and money, and sent individually on their way to various sanctuary cities.

In the real world that would never work but it's a really beautiful fantasy in my mind.

That'd be pretty glorious, unfortunately you can bet your happy ass that ICE would fight and kill to keep those people locked up.

[American Salvation]

I keep wishing to see a militia organize to liberate the migrants in ICE detention. I don't wish for any violence, I just like the mental image of one hundred people with AR-15's standing outside of these facilities and ordering ICE to put down their weapons and walk out with their hands up. Then all the prisoners are escorted to a secret location, given food and money, and sent individually on their way to various sanctuary cities.

In the real world that would never work but it's a really beautiful fantasy in my mind.

It's a ridiculous fantasy, not a beautiful one.

[American Legionaries]

I keep wishing to see a militia organize to liberate the migrants in ICE detention. I don't wish for any violence, I just like the mental image of one hundred people with AR-15's standing outside of these facilities and ordering ICE to put down their weapons and walk out with their hands up. Then all the prisoners are escorted to a secret location, given food and money, and sent individually on their way to various sanctuary cities.

In the real world that would never work but it's a really beautiful fantasy in my mind.

It's a ridiculous fantasy, not a beautiful one.

Por que no los dos?

[Vassenor]

So we know that Disney is famously litigious when it comes to unauthorised uses of its IP. The corporation has previously sued the pants off daycares that painted Mickey on the walls and recently tried to block the family of a dead kid from putting Spider-Man on his headstone.

So you’d think that with all the brand damage that’s come from cops wearing the Punisher skull would make them lawyer up and start smacking heads, right?

Wrong. After the strongly worded “cut it out” that Frank gave in character didn’t work, Disney has just decided to change the logo rather than actually sue over it.

[Senkaku]

So we know that Disney is famously litigious when it comes to unauthorised uses of its IP. The corporation has previously sued the pants off daycares that painted Mickey on the walls and recently tried to block the family of a dead kid from putting Spider-Man on his headstone.

So you’d think that with all the brand damage that’s come from cops wearing the Punisher skull would make them lawyer up and start smacking heads, right?

Wrong. After the strongly worded “cut it out” that Frank gave in character didn’t work, Disney has just decided to change the logo rather than actually sue over it.

How would you have them go about suing secret illegal cop gangs, exactly

[Big Bad Blue]

Clearly not. And we will note that this matter was resolved when Morrow's employer was called. So the police didn't have to confirm themselves that the cheque was legitimate, they could have just not cuffed him and had his employer called.

Clearly not is an invalid conclusion, you're apparently assuming that if a bank manager is capable of making a mistake then a patrolman is either no worse or better. Police came because of a call that someone was trying to pass a suspect check and refusing to leave, they detained the guy on suspicion and then put him in handcuffs after he in his words, stood up in anger and quickly walked towards the bank manager and officers.

Worth noting: He was never arrested. The police didn't assume shit here they responded to a call, made sure the involved parties didn't start fighting, when it became apparent there wasn't a crime being committed they left.

Is the goal here that they should show up, determine the suspect is black and then just leave assuming everything is fine? Feels like an overcorrection.

The bank manager lied to the cops when he claimed he had called the guy's employer about the check. Why is he not being charged a la Jussie Smollett?

Because he's white.

[Galloism]

Clearly not is an invalid conclusion, you're apparently assuming that if a bank manager is capable of making a mistake then a patrolman is either no worse or better. Police came because of a call that someone was trying to pass a suspect check and refusing to leave, they detained the guy on suspicion and then put him in handcuffs after he in his words, stood up in anger and quickly walked towards the bank manager and officers.

Worth noting: He was never arrested. The police didn't assume shit here they responded to a call, made sure the involved parties didn't start fighting, when it became apparent there wasn't a crime being committed they left.

Is the goal here that they should show up, determine the suspect is black and then just leave assuming everything is fine? Feels like an overcorrection.

The bank manager lied to the cops when he claimed he had called the guy's employer about the check. Why is he not being charged a la Jussie Smollett?

Because he's white.

There is another difference: Mr Smollett cost the police quite a lot of money investigating his alleged crime. The bank manager did not.

[Bear Stearns]

And the police were the ones who cuffed Morrow on the say so of this manager.

Yes, because bank managers are better at identifying bad checks than patrolman are.

even depositing like $5k in cash at a bank will arouse the suspicion of the manager

[Bear Stearns]

Clearly not is an invalid conclusion, you're apparently assuming that if a bank manager is capable of making a mistake then a patrolman is either no worse or better. Police came because of a call that someone was trying to pass a suspect check and refusing to leave, they detained the guy on suspicion and then put him in handcuffs after he in his words, stood up in anger and quickly walked towards the bank manager and officers.

Worth noting: He was never arrested. The police didn't assume shit here they responded to a call, made sure the involved parties didn't start fighting, when it became apparent there wasn't a crime being committed they left.

Is the goal here that they should show up, determine the suspect is black and then just leave assuming everything is fine? Feels like an overcorrection.

The bank manager lied to the cops when he claimed he had called the guy's employer about the check. Why is he not being charged a la Jussie Smollett?

Because he's white.

here's another guess: the bank manager didn't try to turn this into a civil rights issue and have powerful friends get the FBI involved

[The Two Jerseys]

So we know that Disney is famously litigious when it comes to unauthorised uses of its IP. The corporation has previously sued the pants off daycares that painted Mickey on the walls and recently tried to block the family of a dead kid from putting Spider-Man on his headstone.

So you’d think that with all the brand damage that’s come from cops wearing the Punisher skull would make them lawyer up and start smacking heads, right?

Wrong. After the strongly worded “cut it out” that Frank gave in character didn’t work, Disney has just decided to change the logo rather than actually sue over it.

How would you have them go about suing secret illegal cop gangs, exactly

You don't, because wearing an item with the Punisher logo on it for personal use doesn't infringe on Disney's IP rights.