Police

L.A. Teen Charged With "Attempted Lynching" Now Gets Raided by Police

|

Jeremy Marks, 18, was arrested and bizarrely charged with "attempted lynching" last May after an altercation another youth had with a campus police officer in Los Angeles. Marks was among several students who watched Officer Erin Robles get into a physical confrontation with another students in front of a bus stop. L.A. Weekly, which first reported on Marks' case, says according to video and other witnesses, Marks doesn't appear to have participated in the altercation in any way, other than to observe and record it.

When the story broke last month, several commenters stated that Marks was charged for recording the scuffle on his cell phone, though from what I've read, the "attempting lynching" charge actually stems from allegations Marks yelled "Kick her ass!" during the fight. "Attempted lynching" is a charge police levy at people accused of trying to incite a riot to help a suspect escape police custody (it's a strange name for that charge, given the actual definition of lynching). But even that appears to be a case of mistaken identity. 

Marks was initially facing seven years in prison. He's facing more serious charges than anyone else involved, and that includes the kid who got into the fight with Robles in the first place (he's a minor). The L.A. County DA's office offered a plea which would have required him to serve 32 months in jail. He refused.

Marks was held in jail for seven months until Google engineer Neil Fraser read about his Marks' on the Internet and sprang for his bail to have Marks home in time for Christmas.

It now appears Marks' home was raided this week, and in a particularly aggressive manner. The only report of the raid I can find right now is from a website called Liberation, which I've never heard of, but bills itself as the "newspaper of the party for socialism and liberation." So read the report with that in mind.

The family of Jeremy Marks awoke on Jan. 26 at 7:00 am to the sound of nearly 30 Los Angeles Police Department cops bursting into their house in full tactical gear, guns drawn. They searched the house, taking all computers, cell phones, cameras and trashing Jeremy's bedroom, his parent's bedroom and the living room.

Police vehicles filled the streets of the predominantly African American neighborhood in Lakeview Terrace. Neighbors were prevented from going into or out of their homes. A next door neighbor had guns pointed at him for trying to retrieve his children from Jeremy's front porch, where they went every morning to be taken to school by Rochelle Pittman, Jeremy's mother.

Pittman asked to see a search warrant. She knew that, by law, police must show a valid search warrant before entering a home. But there was none. For nearly 45 minutes, neither the police nor the District Attorney's officers showed her anything. She continued to demand it until a warrant was produced well after the raid had begun.

And when Pittman asked, many of the invading cops refused to provide their names or badge numbers—a requirement under California law.

As the search ended three hours later, the house interior was unrecognizable. In addition to electronic equipment, Jeremy's notes, papers and legal documents were seized—many of these documents are privileged attorney-client communications.

Every item used to communicate with the outside world about Jeremy's case was taken from every member of Jeremy's family, including his parents' and siblings' personal possessions.

The raid took place as Jeremy's mother was attempting to gather herself and bring her kids and the neighbor's kids to school. The neighbor's children were at the front door when police came up with shields and shotguns ready.

Liberation also reports that the student who posted videos of the initial bus stop altercation was also raided, even though he isn't currently facing any criminal charges.

NEXT: TV Viewing Tip

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. robc’s Note: My future comment is not going to be remotely civil. It will be on-topic. Fuck you editors.

    FUCKITY FUCK FUCK FUCK. Fuck the LAPD in the fucking fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

    Thank you.

  2. Also, Fuck you too Balko. But keep up the good work.

    1. is that because he ruins your fridays? That honor should go to chip bok.

      1. oh henry payne, rather.

        1. oh henry payne, rather.

          FIFY. Rectal is the real Friday fucker-upper. As well as Saturday thru Thursday, I might add.

  3. To continue rob’s theme: FUUUUUUUUUCCKKK

    Anyone want to argue that the po-po aren’t a gang?

    1. And a rather fearful gang, at that. They don’t seem inclined to interact with us lesser folk unless there are a lot of them and they have “tactical gear” and lots of weapons.

    2. They aren’t experts in law…

      1. Most police know nothing about the law. That’s why they’re so easy to defeat in court.

      2. Most police know nothing about the law. That’s why they’re so easy to defeat in court.

        1. You can say that again!

        2. That was my Dunphy police article homage… (in case my poor attempt at an annoying troll meme was missed)

          1. Also, LOL!

  4. The raid took place as Jeremy’s mother was attempting to gather herself and bring her kids and the neighbor’s kids to school.

    No doubt the school busted them for truancy.

    Well, the kids got a better education in the nature of the State than they’ll ever get in school.

  5. IIRC, Liberation is the PLP paper.

    1. Splitters!!!

    2. Looks like I misremembered. PLP’s newspaper is Challenge. In the USA, Liberation is the newspaper of the PSL, which is a new one on me.

  6. To go to those lengths over a matter as trivial as one of your own being recorded in a fight can only point to a depth of insecurity that barely mask a collective homicidal rage. Be weary around these thugs. They don’t fuck around, and neither should you.

    1. I don’t believe this is all about that. Something else is going on.

      1. Professional gets people disappeared, or dead in a ‘random’ street shooting. Personal gets you this kind of bullshit. This is personal for them. I doubt if it goes much deeper.

      2. I agree. If the video had caught a cop doing something illegal, then payback might be all there is to it. But that is not the case here. There is something going on here beyond what is being reported.

  7. It should be clear by now that the LAPD desires the publicity about this case. The question is, why? Whom does it make them look good to? They don’t want to be identified individually, that’s clear from the story, but obviously the dept. itself, i.e. its mgmt., seeks to be known for what they’re having done. Does this Marks family have enemies in the community we don’t know about for which this is flashy payback the LAPD is making good on?

    1. LAPD wants it known just how far they’ll go to intimidate people.

      1. I don’t know about that. The locals aren’t necessarily buying the “protect cops from riots” angle the boys in blue are trying to spin here. If anything, it may just be a way to divert some negative attention away from that dumbass who shot himself (see morning links) and put 7 sq miles of the valley under martial law.

        This is a no-win for the cops and they know it. In my opinion, they’ll continue wrecking this family’s lives every time an embarrassing story threatens their credibility. Too bad for the family that their lives will be hell because the LAPD doesn’t know how to admit a mistake in (this and) other cases.

  8. And you know, I mean, without question, none of the police involved will likely be punished. Probably not even identified. If there IS any recompense for the family, it will come from the fellow taxpayers of whatever county, or the state of California. If there is any retribution, it will be against officers who try to do the right thing, who dare cross the line of blue silence.

    I’m not being cynical here, I’m just stating the facts. Look through your story files if you need arguments.

    Agree?

    Now, hold this in your mind for a bit, and balance it with the completely non-violent ideas you think all the libertarians should subscribe to. If the soap box and the ballot box don’t seem to be working … where do you go next? Me, I’m hoping for change, but laying in a few boxes of ammunition.

    I mean, you can’t expect us to just sit here in front of our computers, letting their boot stamp on our faces, forever … can you?

    1. The Second Amendment, after all, comes immediately after the provision in the First concerning ” the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      That position clearly implies, “But just in case the Government should disperse the assembly and tear up their petition . . . .”

      1. Erm… actually, no, it doesn’t. Don’t read too much into the numbering. That would imply that the Framers felt that no quartering of soldiers in your home (3rd Amendment) was more important than no unreasonable searches or siezures (4th) and no depriving anyone of life, liberty or property without due process (5th).

        There originally were 13 amendments proposed; only the 10 of the BoR were ratified. What is now the Second Amendment originally was the Fifth as proposed.

        1. Are you saying Quartering isnt the 3rd most important?

          The fact that it is never done doesnt mean it isnt more important than search and seizure.

          1. I hates me some Quatering!

            1. And Nickeling and Diming!

            2. Look, it’s fine if the government puts soldiers in your living room for a while. We all have to make sacrifices. Well, not literally all of us. You, mainly. But you know what I mean.

              Besides, you originalists are just twisting words. The Founders obviously intended to prevent our noble soldiers from being drawn and quartered by angry homeowners, since that’s what that meant back then. Not like their opinion matters, since they thought black people were 3/5th of a white person and they’re all dead anyway.

          2. I’m saying that there is no basis for “ranking” the “importances” of the amendments of the BoR simply based on their numbers.

            1. Doing so would imply that the right to peaceably assemble is more important than the right to bear arms, and therefore, the government can ban the carrying of firearms anytime 2 or more individuals assemble in a public place.

              1. WTF? That doesnt follow at all.

                I do agree though that the order of the amendments doesnt mean anything. I just think that 3A is VERY important.

                1. The WTF was in response to the 12:56 post. Stupid limited indenting.

                2. I’m not saying the 3rd isn’t important – my point was that the fact that it the 3rd doesn’t mean it’s less important than the 1st – just like the 2nd isn’t less important than the first. They’re all important. I’ve seen people try to place some significance on the numbering, but it’s not a sequential or heirarchical enumeration of rights in order of importance.

                  And yes, it does follow. If the argument is that the numbering indicates some degree of heirarchical importance, then it would follow that the rights protected by the 1st are more important than those protected by the 2nd. Accordingly, the 2nd amendment rights would have to yield if necessary to protect a first amendment right. OK, so maybe my quick, off-the-cuff example wasn’t the best, but that’s the general gist.

                  Which I don’t agree with, BTW. As I’ve said, the number of the amendment does not signify where it stands relative to the others in importance or anything like that.

                  1. Rights never have to yield. Even to more important ones.

                    That was the point of my WTF. If two “rights” are in conflict, one isnt a right.

  9. Apparently, all the cops have to do is say that they smelled marijuana coming from the home and they don’t need a warrant…

    https://reason.com/blog/2011/01…..ide-if-sme

  10. Meanwhile, the federal law enforcement establishment is busy reimagining the visual depiction of threats to the nation. Because somewhere, lurking out there in the shadows, are people who pose a threat to Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

    Fuck you, Eric Holder.

    Fuck you, Janet Napolitano.

    Fuck you, nameless faceless bureaucratic figurehead FBI chief.

  11. Oh, and double-fuck you, Barack Obama.

    1. How do you get fuck Barak Obama from this story?

      1. Why is that a necessary connection?

        Any time is appropriate for quick “fuck you Barack Obama.”

        I say it, for example, if I drop something on my toe.

        1. Exactly! My mouth-breathing mystical-minded chump friends would say “Jesus H. Christ!” when they hurt themselves, but as I’m too educated for that.

          Religion is all a line of (half feel-good, half scaremongering) bullshit sold by a bunch of violent, intolerant bastards that want to control your life and get rich doing it. That’s why I say “Barack H. Obama!” instead.

          1. Um… I think you’ve missed a significant distinction between how you say it and how I say it.

  12. I think the police want this kind of publicity. Its designed to make the populace fearful of the “authorities” and keep us in our place.Not much different than what is happening in our airports and soon rail, bus stations, stadiums, hotels, malls, etc.

    If ten years ago someone had told me that I would see totalitarianism on the horizon for America I would have told them they were crazy, the people will never allow that to happen. I think I was wrong, we’re not only allowing it to happen, way too many people are happy that its happening — “it will make me safe so fine.”

    The terrorists have won, our government is doing their dirty work for them.

    1. My question is, who are those people? I mean those people who hear of this and think it’s good. Otherwise there’d be no reason for the cops to do it, because their jobs and all the jobs of the elected officials behind them are always on the line.

      1. The same people who supported totalitarian regimes throughout history.

        Stupid people with malicious tendencies.

      2. Who are these people? Parents. As soon as most people of babies, all rational thought about safey goes out the window.

        But that may because the media has done such a fine job in making everything outside your front door a monster, an epidemic or both.

        1. ^^THIS

        2. It’s not like you can’t find people here with kids.

        3. No, it couldn’t be parents in general, because it’s a kid and his parents that they’re harassing. There’s no reason parents would think it good news that parents are being harassed by police, or by anyone else.

          Could it possibly be — and I’m just throwing this out for lack of another good possibility at the moment — inter-school rivalry? Like the people who go to one school have it in so badly for the people at another that they’d like the cops to take one of them hostage and loot their home?

        4. Double this^^^^

      3. Read your local paper online anytime there’s a SWAT raid that makes the news. Read the comments. We had one in Houston a few days ago. http://www.chron.com/disp/disc…..00547.html

        The SWAT team drove their armored vehicle through the front door of the raided house for some inexplicable reason (I cynically think it was budget time, and they needed to justify the Federal grant they were using to buy/operate the damn thing.) The vast majority of the comments are approving of what the cops did, citing the clusterfuck in Florida, and other dangers the police face daily…

        Judging by the comments, Robert, most people hear of shit like this and think it’s good. “Because the police wouldn’t get you if you weren’t doing something wrong.”

        1. But they were said to be looking for narcotics in that case. Here, there’s nothing being looked for, and all the news is about how there appears to be no reason to single this person and his family out. I doubt he was even the only one taking pictures at the time, given the prevalence of such devices these days.

          So in this case the police are saying, “We want everyone to know we’re taking out after a particular family for no reason that we want anyone to know.” That’s very different from, “Narcotics! In your neighborhood! Be scared!”

    2. I was sitting on the couch 9/11/01 watching the second tower come down and I said out load “this is when America becomes Soviet Russia”.

      I wish I had been wrong.

      1. You were wrong. So far, anyway.

        1. Catching a domestic flight in the US is now as complicated as clearing immigrations and customs in both Russia and China — I’ve been to both.

          Anonymous, armed men of the state invade homes, shoot and kill people with no real means of recourse by the people.

          POTUS says he can hold Americans without charges for as long as he wants so long as there is a link to terrorism where that link is whatever he wants it to be.

          We are very nearly there at this point.

      2. Do you really think you won the Cold War? Does Russia now resemble USA of 1990 or does USA more resemble Soviet Union? Maybe ol’ Norman Dodd wasn’t so crazy after all!

        1. The Russians have decided they like crony capitalism backed by a police state.

          A large part of the American ruling class have come to see the advantage of attacking a police state to our existing crony capitalism.

    1. From the story’s comments: Would you rather have someone check it out or would you rather have someone shoot themselves or others. The police have to have them exit the vehicle and need to make sure they are safe. There have been too many policemen killed in the line of duty in the past week or two.

      This poster typifies the average American’s views on both liberty and the police. And I am saddened that this is the case.

    2. Wait, taken into custody? For what? Talking on his phone in his car in the Wal-Mart parking lot? Cause some paranoid idiot nimrod sees a dark object being held up to a person’s head and assumes it’s a scary gun! instead of a ubiquitous cell phone.

      My mind… it is blown…

      1. He’s blowing his mind out! Quick, get the cops here to take him in!

        1. The Karma Police, I assume.

          Whoa.

  13. Who polices the police?

    1. Police police police police!

    2. No need for them to be policed. New professionalism and all…

  14. Operation Chill Effect

  15. Did anyone catch Glenn Beck yesterday @ 5 ET praising the fallen police officers and deriding the evil leftists who dare deride and abuse the police?

    Remember guys, conservatives and libertarians are a natural alliance!

    1. Re: MNG,

      Remember guys, conservatives and libertarians are a natural alliance!

      “At least in my psychotic dreams.”

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo…..76513.html

      1. I thought he was going to break into tears during his authority worship, but he manfully held it back this time.

        1. Re: MNG,
          That may be true, but your contention that: because he fancies himself a libertarian then conservatives and libertarians must be partners, is fallacious.

          1. Exactly. Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian as well. Doesn’t necessarily make it so.

            1. Bill Maher is a smug prick with serious backpfeifengesicht.

              Pardon the Violent Rhetoric(tm)

    2. I think with some more education, Glenn Beck could come around. He already has shown over the last several years that he can evolve past a staunch right-wing Republican – he has made statements that are more towards the libertarian side of Republicanism, although yes, he still is, as far as I can tell, more aligned with traditional conservatism than libertarianism.

      1. Beck drifts libertarian until he again thinks that somewhere out there is a swarthy, barefoot trapped in the 13th century peasant sitting on a craggy wind scarred peak with a .303 Lee-Enfield who just might want to put on a business suit, sneak into the country and slit his throat while he sits crying quietly in a Mormon temple somewhere….anywhere in the US….and he thinks if it saves just one life..mine….then it’s all worth it! The loss of freedom! The intrusive regulation! The parceling out of favors in the form of government contracts……all worth it.

        Beck is a cowardly TV circus clown!

  16. Related story: man “taken into custody” for sitting in his car talking on a cell phone in a WalMart parking lot.

    Good grief. Whoever the moron was who “tipped off” the police had better stay away from here. People with actual guns in their cars sitting in the grocery store parking lot are not exactly a rare sight.

    1. The only reason that town exists is Truman University. Not surprised at the cops doing stupid shit.

      1. The only reason that town exists is Truman University.

        Where?

        I mean, there are a lot of small colleges I couldn’t put on a map with any certainty, but I’ve usually heard of them.

        1. It’s in Missouri, Kirksville MO where the incident took place and the article P is referencing.

    2. I seem to recall hearing that if you are in your car and want to use your cell phone, the safest thing to do is to park the car and then make the call.

  17. I’m sensing some antigovernmant rage here. Lets tone it down and be reasonable.

    1. Reasonableness often requires a megaphone for those with their heads up their asses to hear it.

  18. Liberation also reports that the student who posted videos of the initial bus stop altercation was also raided, even though he isn’t currently facing any criminal charges.

    The State works in misterious ways….

  19. It seems to me that the fundamental problem is the failure of a lot of cops to fully grow up into mature men. Too many of them get stopped at the level of teenage jock/frat boy with a chip on their shoulder and something to prove. So they hold grudges for far too long, over silly bullshit. And they have this unhealthy, innate need to “win” all the time and show their superior power over anyone who would dare challenge their authoritai.

    1. +100

      What can be done about it? Pscyhological testing to week out such personality types? Strong citizen review boards? Classes in the academy that actually teach the value of the constitutional restrictions and not teaching them as rules that should be “got around?”

      1. Maybe test for testosterone level. If the guy has a huge cro-magnon ridge and bitch tits, maybe he shouldn’t be given a gun and a badge.

      2. Remove qualified immunity and prosecute with an equal hand … problem solved.

        The closer we are to the libertarian “one set of simple rules for everyone” and further from the progressive “different rules for different favored groups” the better off we are. It’s really that simple.

        1. It’s really that simple.

          Agreed. And it is also impossible.

          Government, being the monopoly on organized violence, attracts those who enjoy forcefully imposing their will on others. These people already operate with a different set of rules in that they can use force while mere citizens cannot. This leads to two different sets of rules, which then expands into many more sets depending on who the sellers of coercion are trying to please. These rules rarely if ever are examined once created, so any consequence results not in getting rid of bad rules, but in the creation of new ones.

          The natural evolution of any government is into a totalitarian state.

        2. I don’t think soveriegn immunity is some staple of progressivism. Indeed, more “liberal” judges are usually the ones limiting it while more “conservative” judges seem to more often be preserving or expanding it.

          1. You miss the point I think. “Special rules for favored classes” is a staple of progressivism. and one of the big differentiators between progressivism/neo-conservatism and a more libertarian form thought. The point is that special rules for special people always have bad results.

            As for sovereign immunity and progressives, it is just like any other position held by progressives. You can’t attribute either the pro or con position fully to them because having no principles, they will choose either based on political expedience. If they are protecting a progressive power figure they are going to argue that it is absolutely required to govern. If attacking one of their political opponents, they will be able to think of no reason why it should exist.

      3. We could start by, like, prosecuting the ones who do illegal things on duty.

        1. Whoa, whoa, whoa!! That’s radical crazy talk, mister.

      4. This is clearly not a case that could be ameliorated by such means. Do any of you doubt by now that the orders to do these things are coming from at least the top brass of LAPD, if not from city hall, and that they’re doing it with at least all the knowledge that we have here? This is something involving a large number of police and lawyers over a long period of time, not some cop who popped off on impulse.

    2. Hey, they aren’t experts in adulthood or child development..

  20. How do you get fuck Barak Obama from this story?

    Let’s file it under “dereliction of duty”.

  21. The noble public servant Erin Roubles was merely doing her duty to prevent a child from picking up the habit of smoking. No surprise that death cult libertarians oppose saving lives.

  22. It makes sense that they’d call any challenge against a police officer a “lynching.”
    Think about it.

    Can you imagine being convicted of “attempted lynching”? Imagine a brotha asking you “what you in for, man?” I don’t think those accused of “lynching” would fare very well given the racial makeup of most prisons – the blacks would assume it was Dixie-style lynching, and who could blame them?

    1. Most states have a lynching law that defines “lynching” as an attack on a person by three or more people (three or more people being defined as constituting a “mob”). It does not have to be hanging someone with a rope from a tree. In fact, the classical definition of lynching was a mob killing a person without legal authority. It did not have to be by hanging.

    2. Why would you actually say you were in for lynching? Instead of, say, witnessing inappropriate police conduct. Or failing that, punching a cop.

  23. All I gotta say is, it’s a sad day when I trust the “newspaper of the party for socialism and liberation” more than I trust the mainstream media, newspapers of record, etc.

  24. Hey, there’s a war against police. They have to be careful.

  25. This teen was harassed by the LA USD PD, a small unit for assigned just for Los Angeles Unified School District facilities. The same LA USD PD that has just had one of their own officers arrested for falsifying a police report, where the officer lied about being shot by a non-existent burglar. Innocent until proven guilt, but there was such a stark contrast to the previous day’s school shooting. There was a clear double standard in how the police handled the incidents, given the difference in economic areas each occurred.

    And why are these peace officers going after this kid, when there are bigger problems. This is going to turn into a huge civil suit, which will be paid for by tax dollars. Why they hell isn’t the PD reigning this stuff in, because it seems clear it’s going to snowball and cost a whole lot more down the road.

    What the hell is wrong with the police, which are supposed to be charged with serving and protecting the public, not closing ranks and shielding their own!

    1. “What the hell is wrong with the police, which are supposed to be charged with serving and protecting the public, not closing ranks and shielding their own!”

      So… you don’t actually read this site much, yes? Stick around, the ride gets bumpy ahead. One piece of advice: wear a cup.

  26. what a gracious article is! Thanks for the superb substance , I am benefited from it really untold!
    Comic to get many substance and noesis from you in the forthcoming days, I will e’er validation you!every experience I register your articles,which present afford me a attack! the articles are ever reformative for me!I get solon and part accumulation and popularity from your articles,so that I can have up with the steps of the gild!
    I am overeager to get many and statesman stylish information from you, desire that you can portion with me selflessly in the futurity life!Thank you real untold!

  27. Additional info here. Interesting tidbit: The DA and the public defender worked out that nearly 3 years in prison plea deal… the PD tried to get him to take the deal.

    Pause and think on that for a moment. Stipulating that everything they allege is true (it apparently isn’t, but go with it for a minute), that’s what you’d say is a deal? 3 years for saying two or three words? When nobody got hurt? Really? For this you went to law school?

    I would have countered with “how about you apologize and pay my client $25k for the trouble? Now that they’ve raided the home and taken their stuff, I wouldn’t stop for less that 10 times that number.

    1. Looks like your link didn’t get in there, just an anchor to nothing. It’s things like this that make me wonder whether the public defender knew something we don’t.

  28. Hate to burst your intellectual masturbatory session, but nothing will change with cops, or politicians, or even with Americans. Short of a complete collapse of America, martial law, massive internment of this country’s own people, police (and possibly the military) will perpetually teabag Americans ad nauseam.

    The best people can hope for is to sue and get some tax dollars for themselves…

  29. fuck da police

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.