A Minor Deviation To Doc Tabor’s View

I agree with Doc Tabor that it is time to dial down the rhetoric, and  on the tendency to unnecessarily demonize those who oppose us, but I have to part with him when it comes to dropping the rhetorical hammer on certain individuals.

  • First and foremost is Detective Roberts. That warrant is nothing but lies, and he is the author of each and every one of those lies. To call it anything else, or to minimize my language in describing them would be an understatement.
  • Second is the badgelickers. I understand that calling people names is a little hyperbolic, and will draw a certain amount of criticism automatically, but if I’m going to identify these folks, some shorthand is needed. I’m not talking about the people who aren’t paying close attention, and assume that cops are generally honest. I mean those who actively make the most cognitively dissonant excuses for even the most obvious wrongs committed by police.
  • Third is the gun grabbers hiding behind support for the police in this case. The ones who leave comments everywhere that Ryan fired carelessly through a closed door and/or at an unidentified target. This issue has undergone such a thorough fisking at this point, that these two arguments can only be the result of chosen ignorance, driven by either an anti-gun agenda, or grasping desparately for another excuse to scapegoat Ryan rather than dare to look at what the police did wrong before they ever went to his house.
  • Fourth is the cops who have testilied(not a typo) so far. I saw the testimony Friday, right alongside Tabor and Wilburn. The robotic, cookie cutter testimony is so different than the fumblin’ bumblin’ stumblin’ that they do when cross-examined by the defense. Their testimony is clearly coming from the reenactment, not the actual event. I trust that Broccoletti will tear this apart when he calls his witnesses. He has already pointed out the pry bar that’s missing from the reenactment photo, but was photographed in the forensic evidence and documented in the warrant return inventory.
  • Fifth is anybody who would become a narcotics officer in the first place. I’ll give some leeway on the “I’m just following orders” line to any cop who is enforcing laws against real crimes and stumbles across a stash, then has to add the drug charges. But anyone who joins the narcotics unit is making a living off the criminal enterprise that is the war on drugs, and is beneath contempt.
  • Sixth is this prosecutor, Paul Ebert. He has already withheld evidence that he later introduced. He has excused a cop from testifying who was under subpoena, and whose testimony will contradict a prominent portion of the prosecution’s case. If you doubt the underhandedness of Ebert, google Rack ‘n’ Roll billiards.

In my estimation it’s not possible to overstate the sleaziness of those I’ve just listed. I might be convinced to hold some of my fire against some of these folks until their lies become more obvious. But the abuses of some of the others aren’t documented properly in most of the media, and if I don’t point it out in whatever forums I have at my disposal, who will?


16 Responses to A Minor Deviation To Doc Tabor’s View

  1. ktc2 says:

    Have to agree with you on all counts!

    As to those claiming he “fired blindly” it seemed to be a perfectly valid action for the cop who murdered Tarika Wilson and permently maimed and disfigured her infant daughter.


  2. Scooby Doo says:

    Right or wrong Dr Tabor is more aligned to the strategy of an effective defense.

  3. John B. says:

    I cannot agree with the fifth assertion listed above although my politics are divided on this subject. We once blamed the soldiers for Viet Nam, now we are going to blame narcs for the drug war??? I applaud this forum and encourage the freedom of speech/points of view here. If I agreed with everything I read how would I ever learn anything? My opinion is that this “Virtual Pub” is excellent, but ad hominem attacks are a distraction. Keep up the good work, keep on typing, and as long as this is thought provoking I’ll keep coming back!

  4. Jack says:

    I finally understand it now. You are all pretending that you live in a make believe land where you fight the evil cops. Your leader the tooth fairy took the week off and now his young apprentice spouts off with some nonsense. He gave you your big break and you blew it. You guys waste alot of time crying about mythical ideas. Cant you guys just come up with a board game. You could call it “Liberty or Death”, pretty catchy I know. The most important point you are misssing. You guys arent helping or hurting your cause. Why? Because nobody cares about what a bunch of wacko’s think. Keep writing garbage like today and you will alienate averyone. You’ll be the minority forever. Remember, majority rule. Unless you guys start using your brains you wont change anything. We’ll be having the same blog 50 years from now. You guys crying about a mythical libertarian society. If you guys are serious, stop wasting your time on this blog and start lobbying those that can help the cause. Oh, yeah and kick this moron out of your group. Anyone who was starting to believe the tooth fairy, just woke up.

  5. CharlesWT says:

    “We once blamed the soldiers for Viet Nam, now we are going to blame narcs for the drug war???”

    Many of the soldiers in Viet Nam were there due to involuntary servitude. No one is forcing anyone to be a narc.

  6. Lima Charlie says:

    Caldwell (Frederick Licker)

    First: The informant, who was proven reliable by supplying true and accurate information which led to an unassociated arrest, failed to tell Det. Roberts that he was involved in the break-in. That doesn’t make Roberts a liar. There is no evidence to the contrary, only your opinion.

    Second: YOUR cognitive dissonance makes you, and you alone, a Frederick Licker.

    Third: You need to decide whether RF fired blindly or took aim on a man who was wearing a police entry vest and police helmet in the midst of several other similarly dressed officers announcing their presence on both sides of the house and banging on his door.

    Fourth: There is no testimony that the pry bar was needed to gain entry. Here’s today’s quiz – if you get it right, you get a one day reprieve from being a Frederick Licker…What would the entry team have used the pry bar for in the first place? I’ll expect your answer by this time tomorrow.

    Fifth: You are completely FUBAR to assert that a cop makes his living off the war on drugs. His living is his living whether he’s writing tickets, directing traffic, taking a larceny report or investigating drug crimes. If you think dope should be legal, write your congressman. I bet you’ll feel differently the first time someone like RF gets your kid high and creates a new customer.

    Sixth: You need to educate yourself on the rules of evidence and criminal procedure before assuming that Mr. Ebert’s withholding of anything violates any legal tenant. Show us the case, procedure or staute that he has violated. Remember – OUR system provides that he has the burden of proof, not RF. I agree with the system. He excused Winkelspecht because he wasn’t needed to further prove the Commonwealth’s case. It’s not his job to keep him in town for RF. If he was so valuable to RF, then Brocoletti could have subpoenaed him like the other police personnel that he has asked to testify for the defense. His bad, not Eberts.

    It’s my estimation that anyone who thinks that narcotics crimes shouldn’t be rigorously investigated by the police is in a realm of sleaziness themselves.

  7. Jack says:

    Lima Charlie,

    Roger that!

  8. rhofulster says:

    Lima Charlie,
    Was this case “rigorously investigated?”

  9. Lima Charlie says:


    I say it was.

  10. Kt says:


    This blog has been a valuable resource for following this case. It has provided detailed and balanced information. I am counting on it now to provide an in depth summary of what is happening at the trial every day. Most people can not be there every day and what is happening is important.

    I hope you are done with your “rhetoric” You used todays’ post to state your position. I get it. WE get it. There are 12 months of “comments” on everything that is corrupt about this case.

    Right now I want to know the facts. What happened today? What is expected to happen tomorrow?

    Please give us the information that we need!


  11. Kt says:


    This blog has been a valuable resource for following this case. It has provided detailed and balanced information. I am counting on it now to provide an in depth summary of what is happening at the trial every day. Most people can not be there and what is happening is important.

    I hope you are done with your “rhetoric” You used todays’ post to state your position. I get it. WE get it. There are 12 months of “comments” on everything that is corrupt about this case.

    Right now I want to know the facts. What happened today? What is expected to happen tomorrow?

    Please give us the information that we need!

  12. Jack says:


    Two outs, bottom of the ninth. You need to pull this guy.

  13. rhofulster says:

    Lima Charlie,
    Please enlighten me. In this “rigorous investigation,” what evidence (besides the word of the burglar) was developed to justify the forced entry break-in?

  14. ktc2 says:

    Okay who let the cop fellators in?

  15. Britt Howard says:

    Ok, let me answer Lima Charlie’s pry bar question. It could have been for SEVERAL reasons. Chief among them “just in case” and that we read testimony that the battering ram missed the lock. Being able to dislodge the lock with a pry bar might be the logical thing. Aim on a broken door would be even more crucial given the effects of inertia and the possible exposure to those inside the building. A pry bar isn’t necessarily evidence of wrong doing. Hiding one would be though. All legitimate stuff.

    Having said that, it is my position that Det. Shivers life was ended in part by poor policy, and a lack of guide line review and execution. No matter your work enviornment or type of employment, if there is a lack of process review and assessment , or if there is poor instruction/supervision by those with higher pay grades, the rank and file WILL do things that they KNOW they really shouldn’t. Human nature.

    Everyone lost in this horrible tragedy. Finger pointing is meritless. Unless the root cause is addressed, nobody “wins”. Name calling serves nothing but, to cheer for our particular side when we illogically divide ourselves.

  16. Zargon says:

    Such vitriol.

    1) They knew Frederic’s house had been burglarized, something they could have only reasonably learned from their trusty felon of an informant looking for breaks from the police, but who apparently insisted that although he found all this evidence at Frederic’s place and took some of it, he wasn’t the one who broke in. Please. Roberts knowingly accepted evidence illegally obtained for that warrant. That the warrant later turned out to be half-true (possession amounts, not major-grow-ops amounts) makes no difference.

    2) The frequency and magnitude of shenanigans from the police and prosecutors in this case is absolutely staggering. Whether said shenanigans are legal is completely beside the point for me, and I suspect many people here. Whether they are right and just is the issue, and they clearly are not.

    3) Frederic fired at a target he couldn’t see, because he was pushed into that situation by the decisions of the police. He knew he was vastly outnumbered, at the very least. If it can be shown that he reasonably didn’t know it was police (and what kind of a dumbass would you have to be to knowingly enter a shootout against a large number of police with one low powered handgun and all of 6 shots? Remember the interview afterwards shows he was not, in fact, “stoned out of his mind”) then the police are responsible for creating the situation where Frederic’s only safe option was to attack first.

    4) I wasn’t there, so it’s impossible for me to tell. I will say it’s incredibly suspicious that the prosecution is fighting so hard to keep the re-enactment out of the courtroom. The only plausible explanation I can think of is if some cops are indeed testifying off the re-enactment. I don’t know how the defense would show that, though, even if the tape were shown.

    5) It’s already been determined that “just following orders” does not release people from their moral obligations. It may be legal to become a narc officer and kidnap and imprison and steal from people who possess certain things, but it sure as hell isn’t moral, and it’s nice to see that more people are putting that together and laying no small amount of moral culpability at the feet of the officers that enforce the immoral laws.

    It’s been shown time and time again that “writing your congressman” doesn’t do shit. The Iraq war and the bank bailout plan are both opposed by vast majorities. But majorities aren’t going to stop them when there’s money to be made (stolen).

    6) Yes. First and foremost is he overcharged Frederic with capital murder – a crime anybody with half a brain could look at and say is bogus – for the purpose of having Frederic held without bail for the year before the case. That’s a year of Frederic’s life gone, with no recourse, no compensation, even if the jury finds him innocent as the driven snow. A year of his life extracted by Ebert, his judge, jury and executioner.

    The other huge one is that he’s cut deals with convicted felons from the jail to testilie about Frederic bragging about killing Shivers. Those witnesses haven’t come out yet, but they’re on the witness list, and you can be damn sure that’s what they’re going to say. There is no way Ebert honestly believes those felons he going to knock a few years off for when they say Frederic confessed. Ebert is going to knowing let violent criminals go free earlier in order to have them lie under oath and against Frederic. Hopefully the defense will be allowed to demand the jury hear about the details of those arrangements, because juries put way too much stock in the testimony of criminals who are getting a sweet deal for telling the court anything the prosecution wants to hear.

    Other minor points (in comparison to those two, anyways) of interest might be that he lied in his opening, he tried to arrange for the witness to contradict said opening to not show up, he put leading questions on the jury questionnaire, he’s fighting tooth & nail to prevent the jury from seeing the place of the crime.

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

%d bloggers like this: