almightybounter
-
Posts
756 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
Calendar
News
Posts posted by almightybounter
-
-
** Oswaldo Melendez speaks from his booth: **
"Your Honor, in light of the prosecution's thorough examination of our witness, and respecting the court's directive regarding the scope of questioning on direct, the defense has no further questions for this witness at this time. Additionally, it is with regret that I must inform the court that our other planned witnesses are currently unreachable for reasons unknown to us. We appreciate the court's understanding and cooperation in this matter."
-
This thread is established to enhance communication between the team and scheme holders. If you have any questions or information to share regarding your scheme, feel free to post them here. We're here to assist and engage in meaningful discussions.
-
Congratulations on getting accepted to the Drug Scheme. To get you started, you need to create a record to keep track of everything. Follow the template below to create your record.
Topic title: Faction name - Forum name
SpoilerForum name:
In Game Name:
Forum name of the second in charge: (This is optional, but is useful to know in case you're busy or someone needs to speak for you)
In Game Name of the second in charge: (This is optional, but is useful to know in case you're busy or someone needs to speak for you)
Faction Name:
Faction Thread Link:
Faction Type: (organised crime, street gang, motorcycle club)
Type of drugs: (the drugs you were accepted for)
Solo Scheme Members
Topic title: Character name - Forum name
SpoilerIn Game Name:
Character Development Thread: -
* Oswaldo Melendez stands, adding:
"Q1: Objection, Your Honor. Relevance.""Q2: Objection, Your Honor. Ambiguity and Form of the Question."
"Q3: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes Facts Not in Evidence and Form of the Question.""Q4: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes Facts Not in Evidence and Relevance."
"Q5: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes Facts Not in Evidence and Relevance." -
* Oswaldo Melendez stands, adding:
"Your Honor, we respectfully submit that the question is indeed relevant to the case at hand. Lieutenant Wankowicz's observations of Mr. Medina's activities within the Sheriff's Department are crucial in establishing the defendant's character and behavior in a professional setting. The inquiry seeks to explore whether there have been any noticeable red flags or unusual behaviors that might have been observed by a fellow law enforcement officer with whom Mr. Medina worked closely.
Furthermore, the objection on the grounds of lack of specificity can be addressed by allowing Lieutenant Wankowicz the opportunity to provide specific instances or incidents that he may have considered suspicious in the context of his interactions with Mr. Medina. This would add clarity to the inquiry and address the concerns raised by the State.
In summary, Your Honor, the question is pertinent to understanding Mr. Medina's professional conduct and character within the Sheriff's Department, and we believe Lieutenant Wankowicz's insights on this matter are crucial for a fair evaluation of the case."
-
** Oswaldo Melendez stands, looking at Jan Wankowicz and addressing the following questions: **
Q1: Lieutenant Wankowicz, based on Mr. Medina's history within the Sheriff's Department, have you ever noticed anything suspicious at all about his activity?"
A1: ANSWER
Q2: Based on Mr. Medina's overall performance, was there anything to determine him unfit for the Department?
A2: ANSWER
Q3: Lieutenant Wankowicz, have you had any interactions with Mr. Medina in the field? If yes, what can you tell us about them?
A3: ANSWER
Q4: Has there ever been any discussion within the Command Staff in regards of Mr. Medina's behavior and field expectancy?
A4: ANSWER
Q5: Has there ever been a report, internal or not, that you're aware of, submitted about Mr. Medina and his behavior?
A5: ANSWER
Q6: Was the Sheriff's Department ever informed about an investigation on Mr. Medina about this case, or has the Department ever investigated him?
A6: ANSWER
@Kingston AT @Kotwica @Sparkles @Justitiae
-
“Your Honor, the defense would like to call up front Sheriff’s Lieutenant Jan Wankowicz, an important figure that could elaborate more about Mr. Medina’s personnel file and his background within the Department, something that should be taken into consideration.”
-
-
* Oswaldo Melendez strolls up, addressing Cordero the following questions: **
Q1: Were there any actions or behaviors by the deputies that stood out to you before the incident occurred?
A1: ANSWER
Q2: You mentioned the alleged poor reasoning for the traffic stop. Can you elaborate on why you believe the stop was unjustified or improperly conducted?
A2: ANSWER
Q3: You mentioned a history with Deputy Torres. Can you provide more information about any previous interactions you've had with him and if those interactions influenced your perception of the events during the traffic stop?
A3: ANSWER
Q4: Before the incident occurred, were there any actions or behaviors by the deputies, particularly Deputy Medina, that stood out to you?
A4: ANSWER
Q5: During the scuffle that happened when the Deputies placed you under arrest, how did you specifically identify Deputy Medina as the one who struck you? Can you emphasize any mitigating circumstances that might explain his actions?
A5: ANSWER
Q6: You mentioned the alleged poor reasoning for the traffic stop. Can you elaborate on why you think it was unlawful?
A6: ANSWER
Q7: In your interactions with Deputy Medina, did he stand out as the primary communicator, enforcing specific instructions during the traffic stop, or was he there as a backup Deputy?
A7: ANSWER -
** Oswaldo Melendez stands, objecting on the following answers as Leonardo Cordero replies: **
** As Leonardo comes up to the answer of the question number three, Oswaldo adds: **
"Objection, Your Honor. The witness's statement contradicts the evidence. There is no evidence presented that Deputy Medina entered through the right front passenger door or approached the vehicle until he was called by other deputies. The evidence shows Deputy Medina approaching the subject from the left side to assist Deputy Frasier and Deputy Torres when they asked for assistance. The witness is testifying to facts not in evidence, which is misleading. We ask that the Court instruct the witness to answer the questions accurately and truthfully."
** As Leonardo comes up to the answer of the question number six, Oswaldo adds: **
"Objection, Your Honor. The witness's response mischaracterises the nature of Deputy Medina's involvement. The evidence shows that the witness was actively resisting by holding onto the steering wheel when given a lawful order, necessitating Deputy Medina's assistance. The witness's claim of non-resistance is contrary to the evidence presented."
-
-
-
CRACK 101
THIS GUIDE WILL UNDERGO THE FOLLOWING TOPICS:
- What is crack?
- Where does crack come from?
- Why is crack a cheaper alternative of cocaine?
- What are the effects of crack?
WHAT IS CRACK?
Crack cocaine, commonly known simply as crack, and also known as rock, is a free base form of the stimulant cocaine that can be smoked. Crack offers a short, intense high to smokers. It is an addictive stimulant that was popular in the 80's for it's immediate high and affordable prices. When you smoke crack, it zooms straight to your brain at lightning speed, hitting you with a more intense rush compared to snorting powdered cocaine. The high you get from smoking crack usually lasts around five to ten minutes. So, to put it simply, crack is like solid cocaine that you smoke to get high. Some folks call it rocks or hard, mostly in the street terms.
WHERE DOES CRACK COME FROM?
When it comes to cooking crack, there are two main methods: using a stove or a spoon. People who have been using crack for a while usually go with the spoon, while the folks in the trap, the ones selling it, prefer the stove.
If you're using a spoon, you want to keep it simple and not go over a gram of powdered cocaine. Just grab your cocaine, a spoon, and a lighter. Now, for the trap hustlers, they take it up a notch. They use a stove and a few more ingredients like pure cocaine (you don't want to use low-quality stuff), baking soda, a Pyrex container, and, of course, a stove to cook their crack.
The key to cooking crack is the ratio. Experienced chemists can double their product by turning 2 grams of cocaine into 4 grams of crack. That's why they often start with pure cocaine. However, if you're new to crack cooking, don't worry if you lose a bit of the product during your first attempts. It happens to everyone.
To give you an idea, let's say you have 7 grams of pure cocaine. By adding 7 grams of baking soda and using the right technique, you can end up with a total of 14 grams of crack cocaine. But remember, it takes practice to get it just right. So, be mindful of the ratio and keep honing your skills in the art of crack cooking.
WHY IS CRACK A CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE TO COCAINE?
Is crack cheaper than cocaine? That sounds intriguing! But hold on, folks, I must clarify that crack is typically never pure cocaine. In fact, a significant portion of the crack rock might consist of baking soda. Mixing 0.6 grams of pure cocaine with 0.4 grams of baking soda yields one gram of crack. Would you be able to discern the difference? Most likely not, depending on the specific ratio. Distributors or "plugs" often dilute their cocaine during the production process to increase their product quantity, thus maximizing profits. Acquiring pure cocaine is challenging unless you have access to a reliable source or are purchasing large amounts, such as 36 ounces. In simpler terms, crack cocaine caters to individuals with lower income, while pure cocaine is sold to those with higher incomes or more financial means.
WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF CRACK?
The physiological effects of crack cocaine can have both short-term and long-term impacts on the body. In the short term, cocaine use can result in constricted blood vessels, dilated pupils, increased temperature, heart rate, and blood pressure. Some users may experience restlessness, irritability, and anxiety. In rare cases, sudden death can occur, often due to cardiac arrest or seizures followed by respiratory arrest.
Smoking crack can specifically lead to cardiovascular problems, such as increased heart rate and blood pressure, which can have long-term consequences. Research suggests that smoking crack or freebase cocaine may pose additional health risks compared to other methods of using cocaine. These risks are associated with the release of methylecgonidine, which can affect the heart, lungs, and liver.
Crack cocaine is often adulterated with various substances to increase its weight and volume, and some of these additives can be highly toxic. Adulterants used with crack and cocaine include substances like milk powder, sugars, caffeine, lidocaine, and even dangerous compounds like strychnine. These toxic adulterants can pose short-term and long-term health risks.
Smoking crack also presents specific health risks. It is considered more harmful than other administration routes. Crack pipes are designed to minimize the time between evaporating and ingestion, but the smoke loses potency quickly. The use of short crack pipes can cause cracked and blistered lips, commonly known as "crack lip." Sharing pipes can also lead to the transfer of bacteria or viruses between individuals.
It's important to be aware that the quality of crack can vary greatly, and using larger amounts of diluted crack without knowledge of its potency can increase the risk of overdose and heart problems. Furthermore, studies on animals have shown that crack cocaine can cause DNA damage in multiple organs.
Overall, the use of crack cocaine can have significant physiological effects on the body, both in the short term and long term, and it is crucial to understand and consider these risks before engaging in its use.
credits: wavy, almightybounter, wiki.
-
1
-
1
-
3
-
COCAINE 101
THIS GUIDE WILL UNDERGO THE FOLLOWING TOPICS:
- What is cocaine?
- Why do people cut cocaine?
- What are the effects of cocaine?
WHAT IS COCAINE?
Did you know that cocaine is a really powerful stimulant drug? It's actually made from the leaves of two coca plant species. Nowadays, cocaine is infamous and can be found all over the world. It's used by different types of people, from addicts to regular working folks. Cocaine used to be known as a party drug or something people would use to keep themselves going. For example, imagine someone who goes out all night partying and drinking, but then they have to work the next morning. They haven't slept much, so they sniff a bit of cocaine to get some energy and stay awake. That's actually why it got the nickname "work."
On the streets, cocaine is known by different names like soft, white, powder, or tiffany. And let me tell you, pure cocaine is not cheap at all. Usually, it's the people with jobs who can afford it and become regular users. Some distributors make a ton of money selling cocaine if they have a steady group of customers. In fact, it can turn a broke person into a rich one.
Remember Pablo Escobar? He was the head of a cartel and made most of his fortune through trafficking cocaine. Another example is Demetrius Flenory, also known as "Big Meech." He controlled a lot of cocaine trades in several states through his organization, the Black Mafia Family. So, if you have the right product and the right connections, cocaine can really change your life.
WHY DO PEOPLE CUT COCAINE?
When it comes to buying cocaine, it's important to know that if you're purchasing a small amount like a gram or a few grams, the product you get is usually not pure, unless you have an amazing dealer. See, distributors who don't sell in large quantities often "cut" their cocaine to make more money. Let me explain how it works.
Let's say you buy 14 grams of cocaine. If you were to mix each gram with 0.5 grams of baking soda, you'd end up with more than your original 14 grams. The ratio of cutting agents like baking soda can vary, and most consumers can't really tell the difference. It's a way for distributors to maximize their profits.
Interestingly, even the distributors themselves rarely come across pure cocaine, unless they're dealing with large quantities like 36 ounces, which is called a "brick." So, if you're at the lower end of the drug supply chain, chances are that the product you're receiving has been cut with other substances. It's essential to be aware of this when purchasing cocaine, as the purity can greatly impact its effects and potential risks.
WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF COCAINE?
There are three main ways to consume cocaine, each with its own effects. The most common method is to break down the cocaine rocks into powder and sniff it. Another way is by smoking it in a pipe, but that requires cooking it (for more details, check out Crack 101). The least common method is injecting it into your bloodstream with a needle, which is actually done by some people, not just with heroin but also with cocaine.
When you sniff cocaine, after some time, you might be able to tell if it's pure or cut (if you've been sniffing for a while). Pure cocaine tends to cause drips in your throat, almost like loogies that you want to spit out. Another way to test its purity is by rubbing the residue on your inner gums. If it goes numb, then you've hit the jackpot, my friend. Cut cocaine won't give you these same symptoms. In fact, you can often visually distinguish pure cocaine from cut cocaine. Pure cocaine has a sparkling appearance, almost like there's glitter on the chunks, and it may have fish scale-like patterns. So, when someone mentions "fish scale cocaine," they're referring to the pure stuff. Cut cocaine usually looks more solid and lacks the sparkle.
The effects of a cocaine high typically last around 20 to 30 minutes. During this time, your energy levels skyrocket. Some people feel more focused, while others are just filled with pure energy. It's not like an energy drink, though. People high on cocaine often speak faster than usual, and they may not even realize it or be able to stop talking (true facts).
In terms of detection, cocaine usually stays in your system for a few days, but no longer than a week, depending on the consumption method. If you sniff cocaine, it will typically be detectable for up to a week.
credits: wavy, almightybounter
-
3D WEAPONS FABRICATION — 101
THIS GUIDE WILL UNDERGO THE FOLLOWING TOPICS:
- What are "3D" weapons?
- What are the costs of a "3D" weapon?
- How safe are the "3D" weapons?
HOW IT ALL STARTED & WHAT ARE THE 3D WEAPONS?
3D weapons, also known as 3D printed firearms, are firearms that are manufactured using 3D printing technology. These weapons are created by fabricating the components of the firearm, such as the lower receiver, using a 3D printer. The lower receiver is a crucial part of the firearm that houses the firing mechanism and is subject to regulation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in many countries.
The concept of 3D printed firearms gained attention due to the accessibility and affordability of 3D printing technology. Individuals with access to a 3D printer and the necessary blueprints can produce their own firearms without the need to purchase them from licensed manufacturers or undergo background checks. This has raised concerns regarding the potential for untraceable and unregulated firearms in circulation.
It's important to note that the production and possession of 3D printed firearms can be subject to legal restrictions and regulations, varying from country to country. Laws surrounding these firearms aim to address issues of public safety and prevent the illegal manufacturing and distribution of firearms.
WHAT ARE THE COSTS OF A 3D WEAPON?
The costs associated with 3D printed firearms can vary depending on several factors. Here are some cost considerations:
- 3D Printer: The initial cost of a 3D printer is a significant factor. Prices for 3D printers can range from a few hundred dollars for entry-level models to several thousand dollars for more advanced and professional-grade printers.
- Filament or Resin: 3D printing requires a material called filament (for FDM printers) or resin (for SLA printers). The cost of filament or resin depends on the type, quality, and quantity needed for the printing process. The prices can range from $20 to $100 or more for a kilogram of filament or resin.
- Blueprints and Designs: Some 3D weapon blueprints and designs may be available for free, while others may require purchasing or accessing them through certain platforms or communities. The costs for acquiring these blueprints can vary.
- Additional Tools and Accessories: Depending on the complexity of the firearm design, additional tools and accessories may be required to complete the assembly of the 3D printed firearm. These can include drill bits, screws, springs, and other hardware. The costs for these tools and accessories will vary based on individual requirements.
- Post-processing and Finishing: After 3D printing the firearm components, post-processing steps such as sanding, polishing, or painting may be necessary to achieve the desired appearance and functionality. The costs associated with these finishing touches will depend on the materials and techniques used.
It is important to note that the costs mentioned above are approximate and can vary significantly based on location, quality preferences, and specific requirements. Additionally, legal implications and compliance with regulations should always be considered when discussing the costs associated with 3D printed firearms.
HOW SAFE ARE THE 3D WEAPONS?
P80 kits, which are legally obtainable and not considered firearms by the ATF, provide a much safer alternative to 3D printing firearms. These kits are easily accessible for the average person, although purchasing them in large quantities may raise suspicion. While P80 kits themselves are primarily composed of plastic, they also include metal drill bits and an aluminum component.
Regarding traceability, firearms can be traced back to the user to some extent, as there is a digital footprint in the online world. However, there are methods available to cover one's tracks, such as ordering parts to different locations and using VPNs.
It is important to note that 3D printing firearms without complying with ATF regulations is illegal. The safety of 3D printed firearms is subjective, as it depends on the meticulous execution of the process, the use of suitable materials, and careful adherence to instructions. Cutting corners and rushing the process can lead to issues like cracking, breaking, or even combustion. Despite these risks, some individuals are willing to take them.
When it comes to 3D printed firearms, only the lower receiver is typically printed, as the ATF primarily tracks lower receivers. Purchasing a lower receiver from a website or store usually involves filling out paperwork. However, by printing the lower receiver, this step is eliminated, resulting in a 3D printed firearm commonly referred to as a "ghost gun."
DISCLAIMER: The information disclosed in this guide is only to give insight to roleplayers on LSRP and not to be used in real life.
This topic serves as an introduction to the world of 3D printing and P80 in relation to firearms. It is not intended to be a step-by-step tutorial.
credits: shmoe, almightybounter.
-
People v. Gabriel Medina
Case Number: 23B-013
Prepared by: Oswaldo Melendez
REBUTTAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S RESPONSE
_______________________________________________
We submit this response as a rebuttal to the objection made by the prosecution. It is our contention that the Motion to Dismiss the charges against Deputy Gabriel Medina is legally sound and consistent with both the laws of our jurisdiction as well as department procedure and police training. We maintain our position that the charges against Deputy Gabriel Medina should be dismissed, and we offer a counterargument to each of the following points raised.
While the prosecution highlights Mr. Cordero's lack of criminal record, it is essential to note that the lack of a record does not negate the potential threat they may pose during the incident in which Deputy Medina responded to. The judgment of law enforcement officers in the field and in the line of duty often relies on real-time assessments of potential threats based on behaviour, actions, and the surrounding context, not merely an individual's prior criminal history. Officers are always trained to respond to the immediate behaviours and perceived threats of individuals, regardless of their prior record. To uphold the prosecution's stance would be to suggest that only individuals with a criminal record can pose a threat to officers, a claim that is not supported by the totality of circumstances in real-world encounters.
In Deputy Medina’s case, while Mr. Cordero did not have a criminal record, his behaviour during the stop, coupled with the high-risk nature of the neighbourhood, contributed to a reasonable perception of potential threat. Legal precedent establishes that an officer's perception of threat, even if ultimately incorrect, can justify the use of force if it is reasonable under the circumstances. The distinction between this case and People v. Johnson is superficial and does not negate the applicability of the legal principles established through that case. The court held that the officer’s use of force was justified based on the “totality of circumstances” rather than the suspect’s criminal record alone. The court underscored that an officer’s decision to use force must be assessed based on the information available at the moment, which includes but is not limited to, the suspect’s behavior and the context of the encounter.
The prosecution's assertion that the circumstances in Deputy Medina's case were not parallel to People v. Brown is also noted. However, it is essential to remember that "exigent circumstances" is a broad legal concept that can encompass various situations. While evidence destruction was the concern in People v. Brown, other situations can also trigger an exigent response, such as a perceived immediate threat to officer safety or the safety of others. In People v. Brown, the court recognized that certain situations necessitate immediate action, and the absence of a warrant does not render such actions unconstitutional if they are in response to an exigent circumstance. While the specific exigency in Brown differed, the underlying legal principle remains applicable.
Deputy Medina’s encounter with Mr. Cordero occurred in a high-risk environment, which, in itself, constitutes an exigent circumstance. Courts have consistently held that officers may consider the general context, including the location of an encounter, when assessing the necessity of using force. The objection incorrectly assumes that a lack of immediate violent conduct by Mr. Cordero precludes the use of force. However, legal precedent suggests that potential threats to public safety are not limited to suspects who are actively violent or brandishing a weapon.
In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that proactive measures taken by officers in potentially dangerous situations could be constitutionally sound even in the absence of overt criminal activity. Furthermore, the argument that the lack of time for obtaining a warrant does not justify the use of force is a misdirection. The two are separate issues. The decision to use force is based on perceived immediate threats and not necessarily the availability of time to secure a warrant. While People v. Johnson did involve an armed suspect, it underscores the broader point that law enforcement's decisions are based on real-time assessments of threat levels. The mere fact that Mr. Cordero was not brandishing a weapon does not mean Deputy Medina did not perceive other threats that warranted his response.Furthermore, the claim that this motion is an attempt to prevent Mr. Frasier from being called into court is speculative and has no bearing on the actual facts of the case or the legal arguments presented in our motion.
We also call into question the methods employed by the prosecution in obtaining evidence from Mr. Frasier, raising serious concerns over improper evidence collection which severely undermines the integrity of the judicial process and further supports our motion to dismiss the charges against Deputy Medina. We maintain that the prosecution coerced Mr. Frasier to provide evidence related to the incident involving Deputy Medina and Mr. Cordero; undue pressure exercised to secure evidence is a grave violation of due process rights and fundamentally undermines the fair administration of justice. The Supreme Court has long held that the government's use of compelled statements or evidence in its case-in-chief violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against self-incrimination according to Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760.
Additionally, the prosecution’s neglect to retrieve the evidence through official channels is not merely an oversight; but a breach of the professional, legal and ethical standards that govern prosecutorial conduct. When evidence is secured without following established legal processes, it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the entire prosecutorial effort. We respectfully submit to this Court that established legal precedent has consistently deemed evidence acquired improperly as inadmissible to prevent the government from benefiting from its misdeeds according to Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643. The evidence obtained from Mr. Frasier through coercion is not only directly inadmissible but also taints any derivative evidence that emerges from it. This doctrine, known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree," ensures that evidence derived from a constitutional violation is also excluded from trial according to Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338. The prosecution's reliance on such tainted evidence severely compromises its position.
In light of the above arguments and legal precedents, the prosecution's objection to the motion to dismiss lacks merit. To allow this case to proceed would be to condone and reward the violation of fundamental due process rights. The circumstances surrounding Deputy Medina’s encounter with Mr. Cordero, when viewed through the lens of established legal principles, justify his actions. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the charges against Deputy Gabriel Medina for Battery and Corruption of Public Duty should be dismissed.
_______________________________________________
Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.
Sworn this 2nd day of October, 2023 by:
/s/ OSWALDO MELENDEZ
Oswaldo Melendez
-
** Oswaldo Melendez adds, slightly. On his way back, he seems to be reaching for a multitude of papers. **
"Your Honor. We were still working on a couple of motions but being pressured by time due to my client's status and the importance of the case being reviewed properly. We'd like to forward the following motions that were still in the works by the time it took but we're now done with."
People v. Gabriel Medina
Case Number: 23B-013
Prepared by: Oswaldo Melendez
MOTION TO DISMISS
_______________________________________________
Your Honor, we respectfully request the dismissal of the charges against Deputy Gabriel Medina for the charges of Battery and Corruption of Public Duty, and we contend that the examples presented further support this request.
In the case of Deputy Medina, we assert that he was acting entirely within the scope of his duties as a law enforcement officer, and his use of force was both reasonable and necessary given the circumstances. The examples provided from People v. Brown and People v. Johnson demonstrate the relevance of these principles and their application to Deputy Medina's situation.
In People v. Brown, the California Supreme Court recognized that the use of force can be deemed reasonable when faced with exigent circumstances. In Deputy Medina's case, the high-crime, gang-affiliated neighborhood presented similar exigent circumstances, where the potential risk to public safety was significant. Just as in People v. Brown, where the court found that the use of force was necessary to protect the community and prevent the destruction of evidence, Deputy Medina's use of force was essential to safeguard public safety and prevent the possible escape or further criminal activity by the suspect.
Additionally, the court in People v. Brown concluded that exigent circumstances justified the arrest without a warrant, emphasizing the need for swift action. Similarly, in Deputy Medina's case, time constraints and the imminent threat posed by the suspect may not have allowed for the procurement of a warrant, making the immediate arrest necessary to prevent potential harm to the public.
Furthermore, in People v. Johnson, the court determined that an officer's use of force could be reasonable and justified when dealing with a suspect who was armed, had a criminal record, and refused to comply with instructions. This case is highly relevant to Deputy Medina's situation, where the suspect had suspected gang affiliations and was believed to be armed, creating a genuine concern for public safety. The court in People v. Johnson recognized that officers should not be required to gamble with their lives, emphasizing the duty to protect both themselves and the community. In Deputy Medina's case, he had legitimate cause for concern regarding the safety of both himself and the public, further justifying his use of force.
In conclusion, the examples from People v. Brown and People v. Johnson illustrate the legal precedents that support Deputy Medina's actions. These cases demonstrate that the law permits law enforcement officers to use force that is reasonable and necessary when faced with resistance or exigent circumstances during an arrest, all in the interest of safeguarding public safety. Deputy Medina was merely performing his duty, and as the examples suggest, the charges against him should be dismissed as he acted in accordance with established legal principles and precedents.
_______________________________________________
Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.
Sworn this 31 day of October, 2023 by:
/s/ OSWALDO MELENDEZ
Oswaldo Melendez
@Kotwica @Sparkles @Justitiae -
** Oswaldo Melendez adds, eyeing Theodore Lozano and gradually switching his gaze to Judge Chmielowski.**
"Objection, Your Honor. The District Attorney's previous statement indicated that the evidence was willfully provided by Deputy Frasier. However, the current assertion suggests that the footage was merely attached to the arrest record. This inconsistency raises concerns about the clarity and reliability of the prosecution's account of events."
-
** Oswaldo Melendez rises from his seat after Theodore's done talking - adding. **
"Your Honor, with respect to point nine - it is crucial to clarify that access to dashcam footage is not a matter of unrestricted availability to every law enforcement officer. The objection raised is fundamentally unfounded. Dashcam footage is securely managed through either centralized or cloud storage systems, and access to this critical evidence necessitates the possession of the requisite permissions and credentials, which are exclusively granted to individuals at the Supervisory level or higher within the law enforcement hierarchy.
An ordinary Deputy Sheriff, without the appropriate authorization, cannot independently access and remotely view dashcam footage as they see fit. The integrity and security of these recordings are vigilantly upheld, and the established protocols and access controls ensure that only those with the necessary supervisory oversight can retrieve and review the footage. This stringent approach is essential to maintain the evidentiary value and chain of custody of dashcam recordings within the law enforcement framework."
-
People v. Gabriel Medina
Case Number: 23B-013
Prepared by: Oswaldo Melendez
CRIMINAL CASE RESPONSE
_______________________________________________
Defense Argument
-
Defendant Gabriel Medina submits the following pleads in relation to their indictment:
- Defendant pleads Not Guilty in relation to the charge of Battery, a misdemeanor as charged under Penal Code §107.
- Defandant pleads Not Guilty in relation to the charge of Corruption of Public Duty, a felony as charged under Penal Code §609.
-
In the case of Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers can conduct a protective search of an individual if they have reasonable suspicion that said individual may be armed and dangerous. This ruling was further strengthened in the case of Michigan v. Long, which held that a law enforcement officer is allowed to conduct a limited search of an individual's car for weapons if they have a reasonable belief that the individual may be armed. In this case, Deputy Medina had reasonable suspicion that Cordero was armed and dangerous given his affiliation with a violent gang.
Additionally, the case of Pennsylvania v. Mimms established that a law enforcement officer may conduct a pat-down/frisk of an individual as part of a valid traffic stop if the officer has a reason to believe that he may be in danger. In this case, the deputies feared for their safety based on Cordero's affiliation with a violent gang and the potentially dangerous neighborhood in which this event took place as well as his demeanor when actively resisting and failing to comply with lawful orders. Therefore, Deputy Medina's search of the suspect was justified under the law.
-
In Carroll v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the warrantless search of a car does not violate the Constitution, rather it allows law enforcement officers to widen their search powers via the automobile exception if they have probable cause to believe that it contains evidence. In the case of Deputy Torres, he had probable cause to believe that Cordero's vehicle contained an illegal weapon, therefore he had the right to search the vehicle without a warrant. Overall, the actions were reasonable and fully justified under the law. However, since Deputies Frasier and Torres conducted the search of his vehicle and not Deputy Medina himself, this claim cannot be levied nor charged against Deputy Medina, for he did not partake in the vehicle search, approach the vehicle, or engage in any relevant activities pertaining to Cordero’s vehicle. Therefore, holding him accountable for a search he did not undertake himself is unwarranted. Furthermore, Medina's use of force was only a result of the threat he perceived from Cordero's active resistance and evasion, his association with a recognized gang and the high-risk environment he was in. An assessment of these factors render the appropriateness of Deputy Medina’s actions justifiable in the defense of himself and his colleagues consistent with and under the letter and spirit of the law.
-
Deputy Medina's actions could not be considered "battery" because law enforcement officers have the legal authority to use justifiable force to effect an arrest or overcome resistance. The subject resisting arrest and his refusal to comply with lawful orders escalated the situation; Deputy Medina therefore acted proportionally with reason to believe that Cordero’s demeanor may put his safety and the safety of others at risk. Furthermore, Deputy Medina played a supporting role to the lead unit who had called on him for assistance to overcome Cordero’s resistance; his actions were carried out solely for the purpose of arresting Cordero and protecting himself and his fellow Deputies from potential harm. The use of force was necessary and justifiable under the circumstances and did not constitute an act of violence in this case.
-
The allegation of corruption of duty against Deputy Medina lacks legal and factual foundation. Deputy Medina acted in good faith and in accordance with established law enforcement procedures. There was no evidence of misconduct or unethical impropriety on his part.
-
It should be noted that Deputy Medina’s actions were carried out in the life of duty to uphold the law and to protect himself, his fellow deputies and the community. He took the necessary steps to guarantee the safety of both himself and others. The level of force used was commensurate with the threat posed by Codero. The accusations against Deputy Medina seem to be driven by political motives and rely on unsubstantiated claims rather than concrete evidence and thus challenge the legal foundation for the charges levied against Deputy Medina.
-
In the recent case of State v. Jones, a Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas upheld the actions of Deputy Medina on the basis of exigent circumstances. Likewise, in the 2017 case of Graham v. Connor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that officers' use of force must be judged from a "reasonable officer on the scene" and not in hindsight. Based on the evidence provided, Deputy Medina's actions were reasonable under the circumstances and appropriate force was used during the detention of Cordero.
-
Furthermore, in the case of State v. DeMarco, the law enforcement officer acted in good faith and with appropriate force to detain an armed suspect. The same case applies here - the suspect having an illegal firearm on him and acting suspiciously, moreover of his gang affiliation, resisted the deputy's commands. With the same case being applicable here, the suspect had a gun on him, so the law enforcement officers had to use physical force to detain him without further risk.
-
It is essential to remember that the incident in question took place in a high-crime neighborhood where gang activity is common. Deputy Medina was aware of Mr. Cordero's affiliations with a violent gang and Deputy Frasier was working to investigate a potential drug crime. Mr. Cordero resisted, and as a result Deputy Medina was justified in taking all appropriate measures to ensure his safety and that of his colleagues. While the events that took place were unfortunate, Deputy Medina acted appropriately and with the utmost discretion.
- The defense would also like to point out that the prosecution did not adhere to the mandated legal and proper procedures for acquiring evidence, neglecting to properly and legitimately obtain both the arrest report and the dashcam footage. Additionally, the Los Santos County Sheriff’s Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau, whose involvement is crucial in such matters, was neither informed nor consulted about the incident nor the intention to charge and arrest their deputies. This deprived them of their rightful opportunity to assess and provide essential feedback as well as deal with their personnel. The District Attorney’s Office’s failure to reach out to the Internal Affairs Bureau to obtain evidence for the requisite documentation or even notify them of the intent to charge and arrest their deputies is a blatant contravention of the State Constitution and of the jurisdictional agreements in place. Therefore, we move to exclude any evidence acquired on the basis that it was improperly obtained as well as it casts doubt on the reliability and integrity of the evidence’s chain of custody.
Defense Exhibits
1. Dashcam Footage
(( Link to OOC Proof ))
...
Defense Witness List
1. Javier Torres
(( @Scheming ))
2. Cornell Frasier
(( @.Sulfuric. ))
...
_______________________________________________
Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.
Sworn this 28 day of October, 2023 by:
/s/ OSWALDO MELENDEZ
Oswaldo Melendez
@Kotwica @Sparkles @Justitiae -
Defendant Gabriel Medina submits the following pleads in relation to their indictment:
-
-
-
(( This can be temporarily locked as it conflicts matters of interest at the moment and lack of needed time on my end. We'll continue after this gets dealt with. ))
-
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS
CIVIL DIVISION
Case Name: Gabriel Medina
v.
County of Los Santos, in its municipal capacity as an incorporated subdivision of the State of San Andreas;The Office of the District Attorney, in its official capacity as the prosecuting authority representing the County of Los Santos;
Los Santos Police Department, in its official capacity as a municipal law enforcement agency under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Santos;
Department of Corrections, in its official capacity as a state agency responsible for the custody and supervision of inmates within the State of San Andreas;
Theodore Lozano, in his personal and professional capacity;Robert Stein, in his personal and professional capacity;
Nathan Yeung, in his personal and professional capacity;
Jason Siurek, in his personal and professional capacity;
Alvaro Molina, in his personal and professional capacity;
Timothy Locke, in his personal and professional capacity;
Plaintiff Attorney: Oswaldo Melendez
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
_______________________________________________
1. Check one box below that best describes this case:
Personal Torts
[ ] Assault, battery, or unlawful contact
[X] False imprisonment
[ ] Intentional infliction of emotional distress
[ ] Deprivation of rights under color of law
Negligent Torts
[X] Breach of duty
[ ] Negligent infliction of emotional distress
[X] Professional or Medical Negligence
Property Torts
[ ] Trespassing or Conversion
[ ] Nuisance
[ ] Theft
[ ] Detainder
Dignitary Torts
[ ] Defamation (Slander or Libel)
[ ] Invasion of privacy
[ ] Breach of confidence
[X] Abuse of process
[X] Malicious prosecution
[ ] Alienation of affections
Business Torts
[ ] Fraud
[ ] Tortious interference
[ ] Conspiracy
[ ] Restraint of trade
[ ] Passing off
Contracts
[ ] Breach of Contract
[ ] Collections
Judicial Review
[ ] Denial or Revocation of Business License
[ ] Denial or Revocation of Firearms License
2. List any damages sustained or fees accrued. Include billing rate for attorneys, expert witnesses, etc.
- Arrest of Plaintiff, Mr. Gabriel Medina, while on active duty as a law enforcement officer, rendering him unable to perform his law enforcement duties, resulting in a critical shortage of law enforcement personnel during his absence and leading to increased crime rates in the area he was responsible for with the unjust arrest significantly compromising public safety and exacerbated the already high crime rates in the region.
- Revocation of Mr. Gabriel Medina's law enforcement credentials, including his concealed carry license, effectively incapacitating him from performing his sworn duties to uphold the law and maintain public safety.
-
Compensatory Damages in the following amounts:
-
Nominal damages in the amount of $50,000 for the time during which Mr. Gabriel Medina was unable to perform his official law enforcement duties, resulting in lost wages, loss of job satisfaction, and damage to his law enforcement career.
-
Additional compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000 for emotional distress, loss of reputation and related harm of the unjust accusations of corruption deeply tarnishing Mr. Gabriel Medina's name in the law enforcement community and the public eye, causing severe emotional and professional harm.
-
-
Punitive Damages in the following amounts:
-
Punitive damages in the amount of $250,000 to be assessed against the responsible parties for their willful negligence, misconduct, and the malicious intent behind Mr. Gabriel Medina's arrest and defamation with a deliberate effort to harm his career, reputation and livelihood.
-
-
Attorneys' fees in the following amounts:
-
$300.00 per billable clerical hour, to be summated at the conclusion of the case.
-
$2,500.00 per billable trial day, to be summated at the conclusion of the case.
-
_______________________________________________
Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.
Sworn this 22 day of October, 2023 by:
/S/ GABRIEL MEDINA
Gabriel Medina
Plaintiff
/S/ OSWALDO MELENDEZ
Oswaldo MelendezAttorney for Plaintiff
[23B-013] People v. Gabriel Medina
in Criminal Division
Posted · Edited by almightybounter
** Oswaldo Melendez stands, making his way forward.
"Your Honor, esteemed members of the court, I stand before you acutely aware of the solemnity of this moment. The pursuit of justice requires not only an unwavering commitment to truth but also a nuanced understanding of the circumstances that surround the events of October 16th.
To address the alleged violation of Mr. Cordero's rights, the defense asserts with conviction that Deputy Gabriel Medina, throughout his dedicated service at the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, has consistently exemplified a profound dedication to upholding the law and safeguarding public safety.
On that pivotal day, Deputy Medina responded to a call that hinted at gang affiliation and potential threats to public safety during a routine traffic stop. It is crucial to clarify that Deputy Medina, rather than instigating the traffic stop, acted judiciously by providing crucial backup to his fellow law enforcement officer who had already initiated the stop. His decision exemplified a keen sense of responsibility, a commitment to the safety of the public, and an unwavering support for his comrades confronting potential peril.
Our legal system entrusts law enforcement with the authority to take necessary actions to protect the community. Mr. Cordero's alleged compliance with prior inquiries does not diminish the gravity of the situation; rather, it underscores the necessity for further investigation in the face of potential threats. The defense has meticulously demonstrated that Deputy Medina's actions adhered to established law enforcement procedures, driven by a profound consideration of the potential danger posed by the suspect's known gang affiliation.
Furthermore, the witness brought forth by the Defense provides a lens into Deputy Medina's professional conduct. While the witness's interactions with the defendant may not have been exhaustive, the duration of their collaboration speaks volumes about Deputy Medina's unwavering commitment to upholding departmental standards and his intrinsic sense of duty.
Acknowledging the temporal limitations of their collaboration, we assert that the witness's testimony is a testament to the defendant's consistent commitment to his duties, irrespective of the brevity of their shared professional history.
In conclusion, Your Honor, the defense pledges to present an exhaustive examination of the evidence, the pertinent laws, and Deputy Gabriel Medina's actions on that fateful day. We firmly contend that the defendant's conduct was justifiable given the exigencies of the circumstances. Through a meticulous presentation of facts, we will establish that Deputy Medina acted squarely within the bounds of the law, guided by an unyielding commitment to protect the community from potential harm posed by a suspect with known gang affiliations.
The defense respectfully implores your judicious consideration of the facts presented and urges you to render a verdict that is not only legally sound but, above all, a testament to the unwavering pursuit of justice in its truest form."
@Sparkles @Kotwica @Justitiae @Kingston AT