phynedyning

‘A judge’ sentences Commoner-beating, lying (uniformed) thug

In General Information on March 15, 2013 at 4:12 pm

kickyourasspd

Today, ‘a judge’ handed a disgraced Des Moines, Iowa police officer (redundant terms) some harsh justice. For his role in beating two Commoners and then repeatedly lying to cover it up, John Mailander got…

Mailander (Photo: Des Moines Register)

Mailander (Photo: Des Moines Register)

…two years of probation and $2000 in fines and ‘surcharges’. Feral (not a misspelling) prosecutors literally begged ‘a judge’ for leniency and got it.

[NOTE: Coverage in today’s Des Moines Register was used to prepare this screed. The Register did not name the sentencing judge. Phyne Dyning will, therefore, use the identifier ‘a judge’ throughout this piece. That’s why news reporting should always be left to professionals.]

Sentencing was a tender moment of reconciliation between the defendant and his prosecutors.

Dautovic (Photo: Des Moines Register)

Dautovic (Photo: Des Moines Register)

His tag-team partner, Mersed Dautovic, got a whopping (pun intended) twenty months in the federal pokey. And, let’s not forget, some fines (and probably ‘surcharges’ too). He’s currently enjoying his whopping (pun intended) five years of state prison time on charges related to the incident.

Dautovic’s attorney unsuccessfully argued throughout his trial that the former officer’s actions were reasonable, given his perceptions of an unknown threat coming from the fogged-up car.

[Dautovic’s attorney also argued that his client over-reacted because of PTSD subsequent to growing up in war-plagued Bosnia. I was once startled by a moose. Can I go around beating people up at random?]

Mailander, per victim, was fined about the same as a Commoner could expect for failing to provide a pet with adequate food or water. Mailander’s $2000 fines and ‘surcharges’ are chump change compared to the $500,000 of confiscated Commoner currency (taxes) made in a city settlement with his victims.

How did the rogue cop (redundant terms) get such a sweet deal?

Mailander pleaded guilty to his state charges of assault, lying in official reports, and lying in court proceedings. In exchange for his testimony against his fellow thug, feral (not a typo) prosecutors agreed to allow him to serve his state time in a comparatively more cushy federal prison.

[NOTE: Mailander and Dautovic subsequently asked for, and got, complaints against their victims for ‘assault on a police officer’. Those charges were vigorously pursued by the county prosecutor. Uncharacteristically, both accused victims were found not guilty of the charge.]

Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge John Jarvey handed Mailander a sentence that included only four months’ home confinement (surfing internet porn) and three years’ probation.

The County Prosecutor in the case, Jeff Noble, was quoted by the Register. “If we were to follow through on the plea agreement… Mr. Mailander (now) would be subject to more severe consequences than his more-culpable co-defendant, Mr. Dautovic.”

How wonderfully convenient. If you’re a Commoner-beating thug in a uniform, what’s not to like about such a deal?

What happens if a Commoner ‘resists’ a cop, even one acting unlawfully? After your mandatory beat-down, you’ll get mandatory jail time. And, disproportionate sentencing of Commoners who run afoul of edicts happens every day.

Official Ass-Whooping License

Official Ass-Whooping License

That isn’t justice.

Des Moines Police Chief, Judy Bradshaw, had this to say about the sentencing and in condemnation of police brutality by her former officers: [This space intentionally blank]  

Therefore, I propose a perfectly libertarian sentence, in addition to the pitiful one handed down today by ‘a judge’.

Shunning. Or, if that’s too Amish-sounding, try the Jewish equivalent חרם (cherem or herem).

The two Praetorians are now back in the ranks of being Commoners. Decent, respectable Commoners should not sell to them, buy from them, employ them, house them, or even speak to them. Since ‘a judge’ did not have the balls to remove them from society with a punishment fitting their breach of trust, society has the right and duty to exclude them.

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: