Cops Screw Up And Sick K9 On Non-Resisting Man

Before It’s News 0 by N. Morgan

One more gem for the police state files. When will it be enough? Another disgusting show of police abuse was caught on surveillance camera, showing five Atlantic City police officers beating, punching and kneeing a man repeatedly before a sixth officer drives up and sics a dog on the man. The 20-year-old man, David Connor Castellani, was charged with aggravated assault. The video shows he did no such thing. The altercation begins just after the 3:00 mark. Atlantic Police Chief Ernest Jubiliee told NBC10 that he viewed the tape of the incident that took place and “saw no reason to suspend or remove officers from their regular duties. He also sees no reason to release Castellani’s arrest report after NBC10 report Harry Hairston filed a public records request. It turns out, the cop who sicced the dog on Castellani, Sterling Wheaten, has been sued three times in the last three years for abusing citizens and has been investigated by internal affairs more than a dozen times in two years for excessive force. And apparently one of those citizens left this comment on the NBC10 article.  


Sterling Wheaten

But the Atlantic City Police Department boasts on its website that it “has one of the finest K-9 training programs in the country. We have trained law enforcement agencies along the entire Eastern United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands.”

According to the Press of Atlantic City:

The encounter lasted less than three minutes — with police and the K-9 seen backing away shortly after 3:12 a.m. — but the elder Castellani, who is a lawyer, said it left his son with permanent injuries, including nerve damage and muscle paralysis where the K-9 grabbed onto his son’s neck. “They’re just here standing around looking at him, like he’s a piece of meat,” said his mother, Terri, as the officers on the tape slowly back away from her son, much of his body blocked by the K-9 vehicle.

Medics arrived about eight minutes later. An officer who arrived after the arrest prevented Castellani from bringing his handcuffed hands up to feel his injuries. Terri Castellani said her son still wore those handcuffs when, hours later, she visited him in the hospital after authorities allowed the 20-year-old to call home. His back and head “looked like Hamburger Helper,” she said, with more than 200 stitches needed to close his wounds. “It was the most horrific sight I’d ever seen,” she said. “I never expected to walk into what I did.”

Castellani is now suing and the incident is supposedly under investigation by internal affairs and the Atlantic County Prosecutor, which we can imagine, will go nowhere. The incident took place in June after Castellani was kicked out of a casino for being underage. The video shows he was exchanging words with cops from down the street when they came charging at him and attacked like a pack of rabid dogs. And police wonder why citizens would not call 911 to report an officer getting beat up.

Call the Atlantic City Police Department: (609) 347-5780.

25 thoughts on “Cops Screw Up And Sick K9 On Non-Resisting Man

  1. I’ve often wondered… since the police claim that their dogs are police officers but a dog is actually classified as an animal, are they claiming that the police dog is human, which is absurd, or are they claiming that all police officers are animals?

    1. Are you sayin` then tammyc that they are a species amongst themselves?, – hehehehehe – ya know if they are a species amongst themselves they them cops must interbreed with their four legged partner. 🙂 sick they are but I wouldn`t put it passed them.

      1. LOL digger. That’s gross but funny.
        I just wanted to know…do the cops classify police dogs as humans or do they classify themselves as animals?
        I mean if your attacked by a bear or a mountain lion or a shark then you have been attacked by an animal.
        If your attacked by a dog then ergo you have been attacked by an animal. So how is it a police dog is an animal and a police officer at the same time? They can’t have it both ways.
        They are either claiming dogs are humans and have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the U.S. or they are claiming all cops are animals.

        1. LOL, Yea I know tammyc, I just had to say that – ya know me :). Them cops are a bunch of dirty dogs though anrn`t they.

          1. LOL digger…yes they are.
            I guess the point I was trying to make is that if you shoot and kill a police dog that is attacking you, you are charged with killing a police officer.
            But if say some neighbors dog attacked you and you killed it, your not charged with killing a police officer.
            So how is one animal classified differently than another animal when technically they are the same animal?
            So, if you shoot and kill a police dog, classified as a police officer, wouldn’t that make all police officers animals? They certainly can’t claim a dog as being human.

  2. what a bunch of cowardly animals.

    abolish cops… fire them all and do away with them all together.
    they have nothing to do but hurt innocent people.
    they do not not protect and serve.
    we can protect and serve ourselves.

    and we’d save a lot of money not paying their salaries.

    1. LOL Paula. I’ve never read Animal Farm. I’ll have to read it sometime.
      I guess I’m stuck in a logical fallacy loop where the state claims some animals aren’t animals and are actually humans. And visa-versa.

  3. Holy shit. They just bum rushed him and beat the living shit out of him. Then the asshole with the dog just put the dog directly on him in full on attack mode. To me, this looks like total savagery. These guys were acting like complete thugs. There is no defending what they did, at all.

  4. Ok, I found the Federal Code where they consider us as animals… Notice how is says.. “Man and other animals”

    To read the whole story on this go to Alfred Adask’s website

    “The federal code, upon which the state code is based and which is virtually identical, is 21 U.S.C.A. §321(g)(1), which provides in pertinent part:

    “The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). A food or dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to sections 343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(3) of this title or sections 343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance with the requirements of section 343(r) of this title is not a drug solely because the label or the labeling contains such a claim. A food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section 343(r)(6) of this title is not a drug under clause (C) solely because the label or the labeling contains such a statement.

    1. Thanks for that info Smilardog. I remember reading that a few years ago. The phrase “man or other animals” says it all.
      This just helps to illustrate the Fedgov logical fallacy which considers a canine or Canis Lupus Familiaris, a member of the Canidae family of the mammalian order of Carnivora, as a human being or Homo Sapien.
      Homo Sapiens are primates of the family Hominidae and are the only EXTANT species of the genus Homo.
      Extant meaning: Still existing or currently in existence.
      Humans are distinguished from other primates by bipedal motion, larger brain, well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex, temporal lobes, abstract reasoning, language and problem solving.
      My point is, dogs do not understand abstract concepts such as science, philosophy, mythology or religion. Humans and dogs are two different species. Ask a dog to light a campfire….I’ll bet he can’t do it.
      Now if you take the Fedgov definition of “man or other animals” that would mean that every police dog, every police officer, every jury member in a court, and every member of Fedgov are animals as well with no distinction between the species.
      Why would I, as a Human, put forth any trust in an animal that can’t light a campfire or boil water, decide my fate without even asking my permission or consent?
      The obvious answer is to kill the quadruped covered in fur with a tail, and then kill the animals who sent the quadruped. Forthwith and with extreme prejudice.
      Anything less would be state sanctioned animals killing animals.
      And I for one am not an animal.

      1. Tammy,
        Using dogs on herd animals is certainly no new concept, as treating people as herd animals is not. Look at the American nationals of dark complexion during the 60s. The dog is set on a higher plane than the human being because it is seen that its value is greater. And of course the cop puts himself on a higher plane just as the cowboy does above the cow, keeping in mind of course, in reality the rancher sees himself as owning both.
        If you step back and look at it the very concept of using dogs to control human beings as herd animals, this tells the story. I don’t think the cops see themselves as in our service and they are quite happy to be the cowboys owned by the rancher and are becoming more and more comfortable with their sadistic treatment of the herd.

        1. And like a pack of wolves, they single out the weakest, either the youngest or oldest, or a single animal that separated from the herd, and go into attack mode. How often have we seen them go after the elderly in a nursing home and KILL them? or a 107 year old man in Arkansas and KILL him? or a 100# dripping wet female and body slam them to the ground during a traffic stop? Or do a body cavity search along a highway? Or strip search them, taking away their clothes for 6 hours, with both male and female wolves in attendance? They truly act like a pack of wolves that go into attack mode. They believe that they are “more equal than the other animals.”

        2. I agree with everything you said Henry. There is only one problem….I withdrew my consent to be herded a long time ago. Maybe I will be able to live in the countryside peacefully or maybe I won’t. I doubt I will evade the animal herders much longer but that’s the way it is. Hence my earlier statement as to “the obvious answer”…
          Thanks for the response.

  5. When will Americans have had enough of all this? Sure seems like the authorities have no intention of letting up. What with several stories per day, from all over the States, one might begin to wonder if they think they’re at war with us or something.

    Most folks don’t seem to understand: “they” are not going to stop. Unless of course Americans reach that point where we have had enough. Does that point exist? I’m not yet convinced it does.

    1. It will happen eventually. It will be slow to begin with, a few cops being popped here and there. Then those members of the public who have seen and felt the abuse first hand and have seen no justice will start going Judge Dredd(civilian version).
      I was expecting the public to start going postal on cops at least a year ago. It’s coming.

  6. For those who didn’t have the time to go to that website and read more, here are some more important points that we should all know and understand as far as who we really are in Gods eyes.

    2. Note well that the phrase “man or other animals” appears twice in the cited state law, twice in the cited federal law, and twice more in the plaintiffs’ conclusion and summary–for a total of six instances in plaintiffs’ text.

    3. Plaintiffs argue, in essence, that the “key” to determining the allegations in GV400268 is determining “at law” whether alleged defendants advertised and sold alleged “drugs” with the “intent for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals” or “sold with the intent of affecting ‘the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals’.”

    4. The phrase “man or other animals” can only be read to mean that, under the alleged laws and arguments advanced by plaintiffs, “man” is viewed by plaintiffs and/or our current government as nothing more than an “animal”.

    5. I am a man endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

    6. I deny that I am an animal.

    7. I deny that I do business with animals.

    8. I eat animals.

    9. I am a Protestant Christian.

    10. I fear the LORD; I am sincere in my faith.

    11. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1, The Bible.

    12. “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” Genesis 1: 26-28, The Bible.

    13. Plaintiffs’ argument that “men” are “animals” defies the fundamental precept of the Jewish and Christian faiths that of all earthly creations, man–and man alone–is made in God’s image and separate from animals in that man is endowed by God with dominion over animals.

    14. Plaintiffs’ attempt to compel me, other alleged defendants, and all other men and women to accept the status of animals violates my sincerely held religious beliefs.

    15. “‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?’ Jesus said to him,’ you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’” Matthew 22:36-40

    16. Plaintiff’s “key” contention that “men” are “animals” prevents me–a man–from loving my fellow man.

    17. The “Declaration of Independence” declares in part: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [Emphasis added.]

    18. I deny that “animals” are endowed by their Creator with any “unalienable Rights.”

    19. The third sentence of the “Declaration of Independence” declares the principle duty of government: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

    20. I am a man; the principal business of Government and its officers is to secure my God-given, unalienable Rights.

    21. Plaintiffs’ attempt to equate all “men” with “animals” deprives me of the benefit of religious freedom and of the benefit of God-given, unalienable rights.

    22. Plaintiffs’ attempt to equate all “men” with “animals” is an attempt to establish a pagan religion that is contrary to the principles of the Jewish and Christian faiths and impose this pagan religion upon the people of The United States of America.

    23. A plea to the jurisdiction is proper when the dispute clearly involves ecclesiastical matters over which the courts have no jurisdiction. See Hawkins v. Friendship Missionary Baptist Ch., 69 S.W.3d 756,758-59 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Green v. United Pentecostal Ch. Int’l, 899 S.W.2d 28, 30 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, writ denied); Patterson v. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 858 S.W.2d 602,604-05 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1993, no writ); see also Williams v. Gleason, 26 S.W.3d 54, 55-56 (Tex.App.­Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (resolved issue by motion for summary judgment). Secular courts cannot constitutionally determine the truth or falsity of religious matters. Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 678-79 (Tex.1996); see also Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 723 (1976) (religious controver­sies are not proper subject of civil court inquiry).

    24. “As a threshold requirement, [defendant] must demonstrate that her refusal to be photographed is grounded upon a sincerely held religious belief. See Stevens v. Berger, 428 F.Supp. 896, 899 (E.D.N.Y.1977). Although a religious belief requires something more than a purely secular philosophical or personal belief, Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S. at 215-16, 92 S.Ct. at 1533-34, courts have approved an expansive definition of religion. See United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 165-66, 85 S.Ct. 850, 853-54, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965) (test is whether “a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God”); see also International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber, 650 F.2d 430, 440 (2d Cir.1981); Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 409 F.2d 1146 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 963, 90 S.Ct. 434, 24 L.Ed.2d 427 (1969).” Quaring v Peterson, 728 F.2d 1121 (A.D. 1983)

    25. “[T]he guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect. Particularly in this sensitive area, it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or his fellow [adherent] more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith. Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.” Thomas v. Review Board, supra, 450 U.S. at 715-16, 101 S.Ct. at 1430-31.

    26. “Under the proper analysis, a burden upon religion exists when ‘the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, * * * thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” Thomas v. Review Board, supra, 450 U.S. at 717-18, 101 S.Ct. at 1431-32.

    27. By treating all “men” to be “animals,” the state withholds from me the important benefits and/or unalienable Rights of free association and pursuit of Happiness.

    28. “In Sherbert v. Verner, supra, . . . the Supreme Court held that in denying unemployment benefits to a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church who refused to work on Saturdays, the Sabbath of her faith, the state violated her right to the free exercise of religion. 374 U.S. at 402, 83 S.Ct. at 1792. Assessing the burden of the denial of benefits on the Sabbatarian’s exercise of her religion, the Court commented,

    “The [denial] forces her to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion [not working on Saturdays] in order to accept work, on the other hand. Id. at 404, 83 S.Ct. at 1794.” Quaring v Peterson, supra.

    29. Under the pretext of treating all “men” as “animals,” plaintiffs attempt to force me and other alleged defendants to choose between following the precepts of our religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of our religion [recognizing our fellow men has made in the image of God rather than as animals] in order to work without the threat of undue regulation and excessive fines arbitrarily impose by “this state”.

    30. For additional facts supporting this “Verified Notice of Special Appearance and Answer to Plaintiff’s 5th Amended Petition,” see attached “Notice By Affidavit of Alfred Adask” filed with the Travis County District Clerk on September 7th, A.D. 2006.

    Further affiant says nought.

    s/ Alfred Adask

    1. Fantastic research and very brilliantly thought out Smilardog. You have surpassed all of us I think.
      There’s only one problem….try telling that to the animals wearing badges while they sic a quadruped on you.
      Somehow I don’t think trying to talk or waiving a piece of paper at them will help very much.
      Nevertheless, it’s a great declaration.

      1. This has nothing to do with showing them any paper or anything. This is just who we are. I for one, am just biding my time, until it is time. That day is coming and we all know it. It’s getting closer everyday.

        As far as, I know, that stuff doesn’t happen here in Yuma. I never hear of anyone getting physically abused by the PO PO. This whole area centers around the Marine Base, the Army Proving Grounds, Agriculture, and Snowbirds in the winter. Most people are armed, either openly carrying, or within arms length away from them at anytime, even our women. Actually, I know more women around here that carry then men. I don’t know if having so much fire power at hand keeps the cops in check, or not. Don’t get me wrong, when ever I see one I go into a situational awareness mode. As we all know, they will ruin your life if they can. What I think I am getting at is…. I think that just maybe, they would naturally side with the people. I know that the “Local” military would. I talk to them, and everyday they become more awake and aware to what’s going on. Not to mention… they are our neighbors and live on the same streets and their kids go to the same schools, and they and their families ride their off road vehicles on the same dunes and desert as we do, and hang out at the same camp ground’s and recreation areas.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *