This is some amazing circular logic here.
"If you don't stop, I will arrest you for resisting arrest".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qhzdxYnwhg&feature=share
SFGate article (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-public-defender-detained-outside-court-6046088.php)
Contempt of cop strikes again.
What was she being arrested for before resisting it?
Quote from: Liep on January 29, 2015, 12:27:31 PM
What was she being arrested for before resisting it?
That will be an interesting question for the officer to answer when the inevitable lawsuit starts up.
Fascinating.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 29, 2015, 12:28:35 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 29, 2015, 12:27:31 PM
What was she being arrested for before resisting it?
That will be an interesting question for the officer to answer when the inevitable lawsuit starts up.
No shit. Back east, we would call that unlawful arrest and false imprisonment. And that's not even addressing the
ad hoc custodial interrogation of an individual in violation of his civil rights.
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 12:17:19 PM
This is some amazing circular logic here.
"If you don't stop, I will arrest you for resisting arrest".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qhzdxYnwhg&feature=share
Well it's not circular reasoning. She was arrested for obstructing a police investigation by preventing the police from taking photographs.
I can't comment specifically on merits of the arrest and don't wish to get involved in a deep discussion - just pointing out that it isn't circular reasoning.
Quote from: Liep on January 29, 2015, 12:27:31 PM
What was she being arrested for before resisting it?
I think she was arrested for interfering with the cop trying to take the dude's picture. In other words, the arrest she resisted was not her own.
As to whether that's a legit charge, I have no opinion.
Or what Beeb said. :sleep:
QuoteStansbury was one of three officers whose traffic stop of an off-duty black colleague in 2013 led the off-duty officer to file a federal civil rights lawsuit filed against the city. Police officials have said the officers involved had not engaged in racial profiling.
QuoteIt's unclear if Tillotson will actually face charges in the case.
She was released from custody under penal code 849b, Esparza said, which usually means there is insufficient evidence for making a criminal complaint.
It still is an active criminal investigation, however, Esparza said.
"Time is on our side," he said.
Translation: Since we really can't legally "unarrest" somebody, and catch and release programs only work in environmental conservation, we're going to take our time to think of the appropriate charge to avoid the inevitable lawsuits, like hindering or obstruction, perhaps.
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2015, 12:33:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 12:17:19 PM
This is some amazing circular logic here.
"If you don't stop, I will arrest you for resisting arrest".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qhzdxYnwhg&feature=share
Well it's not circular reasoning. She was arrested for obstructing a police investigation by preventing the police from taking photographs.
I can't comment specifically on merits of the arrest and don't wish to get involved in a deep discussion - just pointing out that it isn't circular reasoning.
the problem with your reasoning is that the cop who made the arrest wasn't aware of it. He said that she would be arrested for resisting arrest. Now, i am sure that you and he could probably sort out his reasons for arresting her, and I am sure that you could convince hin that he made the arrest for your reasons rather than his, but the judge seems unlikely to let you testify.
This may be the dumbest arrest i have ever seen, but the police department's immediate reaction calling it appropriate if far more stupid than the arrest.
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2015, 12:46:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2015, 12:33:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 12:17:19 PM
This is some amazing circular logic here.
"If you don't stop, I will arrest you for resisting arrest".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qhzdxYnwhg&feature=share
Well it's not circular reasoning. She was arrested for obstructing a police investigation by preventing the police from taking photographs.
I can't comment specifically on merits of the arrest and don't wish to get involved in a deep discussion - just pointing out that it isn't circular reasoning.
the problem with your reasoning is that the cop who made the arrest wasn't aware of it. He said that she would be arrested for resisting arrest. Now, i am sure that you and he could probably sort out his reasons for arresting her, and I am sure that you could convince hin that he made the arrest for your reasons rather than his, but the judge seems unlikely to let you testify.
This may be the dumbest arrest i have ever seen, but the police department's immediate reaction calling it appropriate if far more stupid than the arrest.
Now, I don't know California criminal law, but what I do know is Canadian criminal law. We have a provision for resisting arrest - s. 129(a). It is commonly referred to as "resisting arrest". But it actually covers a wide scope of conduct well beyond only "resisting arrest".
I think we should wait for Martinus to weigh in, and see what other foreigners have to say about another country's criminal justice processes as well.
I suspect BB's not far off and that you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult. :hmm:
Well, maybe there is some legal detail here that a simple layman doesn't understand, but to arrest someone for resisting arrest, there would need to be another charge to warrant said arrest for them to resist.
She wasn't being arrested for anything when he said he was going to arrest her for resisting arrest. The charge, under plain English, cannot stand on its own. I could certianly see it in conunction with some other charge of course. Like, you are being arrested for pissing on the sidewalk, and you resist THAT, so now you get another charge.
But she was not doing anything he objected to other than not letting him take pictures. Is taking a picture of her client an arrest such that not letting him do so is resisting it?
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 01:07:58 PM
Well, maybe there is some legal detail here that a simple layman doesn't understand, but to arrest someone for resisting arrest, there would need to be another charge to warrant said arrest for them to resist.
She wasn't being arrested for anything when he said he was going to arrest her for resisting arrest. The charge, under plain English, cannot stand on its own. I could certianly see it in conunction with some other charge of course. Like, you are being arrested for pissing on the sidewalk, and you resist THAT, so now you get another charge.
But she was not doing anything he objected to other than not letting him take pictures. Is taking a picture of her client an arrest such that not letting him do so is resisting it?
Apparently, in Canada, you don't have to be resisting arrest to get arrested for resisting arrest, on account of s. 129(a) allowing arrests for resisting arrest when one isn't resisting anything.
In California, I doubt that this is true. If she were to be arrested for, say, obstructing justice, I'd still see it as a stupid arrest, but not one so moronic or damaging to the reputation of the police.
Turns out that she was apparently released after an hour because the arresting officer failed to show up to file a complaint.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 29, 2015, 01:06:44 PM
I suspect BB's not far off and that you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult. :hmm:
I suspect that this was a stupid arrest, and that BB's defense of it is motivated not by his conviction that it is a proper arrest, but by his conviction that he has to support The Man in all cases where the competence of The man is called into question.
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 01:07:58 PM
Well, maybe there is some legal detail here that a simple layman doesn't understand, but to arrest someone for resisting arrest, there would need to be another charge to warrant said arrest for them to resist.
She wasn't being arrested for anything when he said he was going to arrest her for resisting arrest. The charge, under plain English, cannot stand on its own. I could certianly see it in conunction with some other charge of course. Like, you are being arrested for pissing on the sidewalk, and you resist THAT, so now you get another charge.
But she was not doing anything he objected to other than not letting him take pictures. Is taking a picture of her client an arrest such that not letting him do so is resisting it?
In plain English, "resisting arrest" does not specify who's arrest is being resisted.
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2015, 01:16:06 PM
I suspect that this was a stupid arrest, and that BB's defense of it is motivated not by his conviction that it is a proper arrest, but by his conviction that he has to support The Man in all cases where the competence of The man is called into question.
He's not really defending it though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 01:16:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 01:07:58 PM
Well, maybe there is some legal detail here that a simple layman doesn't understand, but to arrest someone for resisting arrest, there would need to be another charge to warrant said arrest for them to resist.
She wasn't being arrested for anything when he said he was going to arrest her for resisting arrest. The charge, under plain English, cannot stand on its own. I could certianly see it in conunction with some other charge of course. Like, you are being arrested for pissing on the sidewalk, and you resist THAT, so now you get another charge.
But she was not doing anything he objected to other than not letting him take pictures. Is taking a picture of her client an arrest such that not letting him do so is resisting it?
In plain English, "resisting arrest" does not specify who's arrest is being resisted.
So what arrest was she resisting then?
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2015, 01:14:02 PM
Turns out that she was apparently released after an hour because the arresting officer failed to show up to file a complaint.
There needs to be some kind of consequence for this - the police cannot be allowed to imprison people simply to get them out of their way, then "not file a complaint" and call it a day.
If there are grounds for charging her, then charge her. If there are not, then what the officer did is potentially criminal.
This reminds me of the New Orleans cops who arrested the football official.
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 01:23:59 PM
So what arrest was she resisting then?
Like I said, the dude who's photo the copper was trying to take.
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2015, 01:14:02 PM
Turns out that she was apparently released after an hour because the arresting officer failed to show up to file a complaint.
She must have had a good Public Defender working on her case.... ;)
I bet she used the "Do you know who I am??" defense.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 29, 2015, 12:57:29 PM
I think we should wait for Martinus to weigh in, and see what other foreigners have to say about another country's criminal justice processes as well.
Well, you know what I think about cops. :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 29, 2015, 01:42:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 29, 2015, 12:57:29 PM
I think we should wait for Martinus to weigh in, and see what other foreigners have to say about another country's criminal justice processes as well.
Well, you know what I think about cops. :P
Tackle 'em?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 01:26:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 01:23:59 PM
So what arrest was she resisting then?
Like I said, the dude who's photo the copper was trying to take.
So taking someone's picture is arresting them? Is this really the justification you are going with?
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 01:25:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2015, 01:14:02 PM
Turns out that she was apparently released after an hour because the arresting officer failed to show up to file a complaint.
There needs to be some kind of consequence for this - the police cannot be allowed to imprison people simply to get them out of their way, then "not file a complaint" and call it a day.
If there are grounds for charging her, then charge her. If there are not, then what the officer did is potentially criminal.
This reminds me of the New Orleans cops who arrested the football official.
But discretion in charging is an important part of policework. It happens all the time. Police come upon the scene of what appears to be a crime. They arrest the person who appears to be committing a crime. Then they investigate further only to determine that no crime was in fact being committed.
And there are consequences. There are police complaint procedures in every jurisdiction. In addition to that, a person can file a civil lawsuit.
The smart cop does it out in the parking lot. But what the fuck do I know.
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2015, 01:55:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 01:25:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2015, 01:14:02 PM
Turns out that she was apparently released after an hour because the arresting officer failed to show up to file a complaint.
There needs to be some kind of consequence for this - the police cannot be allowed to imprison people simply to get them out of their way, then "not file a complaint" and call it a day.
If there are grounds for charging her, then charge her. If there are not, then what the officer did is potentially criminal.
This reminds me of the New Orleans cops who arrested the football official.
But discretion in charging is an important part of policework. It happens all the time. Police come upon the scene of what appears to be a crime. They arrest the person who appears to be committing a crime. Then they investigate further only to determine that no crime was in fact being committed.
And there are consequences. There are police complaint procedures in every jurisdiction. In addition to that, a person can file a civil lawsuit.
There is a difference between an arrest made in good faith and one not made in good faith.
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 01:57:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2015, 01:55:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 01:25:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2015, 01:14:02 PM
Turns out that she was apparently released after an hour because the arresting officer failed to show up to file a complaint.
There needs to be some kind of consequence for this - the police cannot be allowed to imprison people simply to get them out of their way, then "not file a complaint" and call it a day.
If there are grounds for charging her, then charge her. If there are not, then what the officer did is potentially criminal.
This reminds me of the New Orleans cops who arrested the football official.
But discretion in charging is an important part of policework. It happens all the time. Police come upon the scene of what appears to be a crime. They arrest the person who appears to be committing a crime. Then they investigate further only to determine that no crime was in fact being committed.
And there are consequences. There are police complaint procedures in every jurisdiction. In addition to that, a person can file a civil lawsuit.
There is a difference between an arrest made in good faith and one not made in good faith.
Indeed. Such discretion is all well and good, but abuse of it needs to be dealt with severely. And it seems in nearly 100% of cases, the police administration just says "it's all good".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 29, 2015, 01:56:52 PM
The smart cop does it out in the parking lot. But what the fuck do I know.
Well that was what amazed me; abuse of power is one thing, but abusing your power over a public defender while another public defender is recording the whole thing seems pretty stupid.
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 01:57:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2015, 01:55:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 01:25:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2015, 01:14:02 PM
Turns out that she was apparently released after an hour because the arresting officer failed to show up to file a complaint.
There needs to be some kind of consequence for this - the police cannot be allowed to imprison people simply to get them out of their way, then "not file a complaint" and call it a day.
If there are grounds for charging her, then charge her. If there are not, then what the officer did is potentially criminal.
This reminds me of the New Orleans cops who arrested the football official.
But discretion in charging is an important part of policework. It happens all the time. Police come upon the scene of what appears to be a crime. They arrest the person who appears to be committing a crime. Then they investigate further only to determine that no crime was in fact being committed.
And there are consequences. There are police complaint procedures in every jurisdiction. In addition to that, a person can file a civil lawsuit.
There is a difference between an arrest made in good faith and one not made in good faith.
That is indeed a difference.
But it's a damn hard difference to prove.
Even if, as Beebs is saying, "resisting arrest" really means "doing something to interfere with a police officers duties", it is STILL stunningly stupid.
Okay, having watched the video I think it's pretty hard to apply Beeb's resisting arrest scenario. It seems pretty clear that the arrest was being made in bad faith.
One interesting thing is that if there were any legit charge to be filed for that conduct (hypothetically, since a lawyer is certainly entitled to terminate the "voluntary contact" encounter between the police and her client), it would be "obstruction of justice" rather than "resisting arrest."
But resisting arrest (w/o violence) is generally a misdemeanor, while obstruction of justice tends to be a pretty serious felony that they might not have felt quite empowered enough to pursue...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 29, 2015, 02:23:47 PM
One interesting thing is that if there were any legit charge to be filed for that conduct (hypothetically, since a lawyer is certainly entitled to terminate the "voluntary contact" encounter between the police and her client), it would be "obstruction of justice" rather than "resisting arrest."
But resisting arrest (w/o violence) is generally a misdemeanor, while obstruction of justice tends to be a pretty serious felony that they might not have felt quite empowered enough to pursue...
Net says obstruction of justice can be charged as misdemeanor in California.
In the five or six states where I've either practiced in or spent a fair amount of time in the criminal courts (especially the lower-level/misdemeanor courts where there is a division), "Resisting Arrest" is a very common charge, and IME the statutes are pretty clear that it criminalizes resisting or impeding your *own* arrest. Interfering in someone else's arrest is usually treated much more harshly... an obstruction charge, as mentioned above, or accessory after the fact, aiding and abetting, etc.
EDIT: Not that these kind of charges are necessarily serious felonies everywhere (some states have ones specifically tailored to this kind of situation, like "interference in a lawful arrest" or "hindering a peace officer in the performance of his/her duties"), just that resist charges are only ever brought against the individuals getting arrested.
Quote from: derspiess on January 29, 2015, 01:33:53 PM
I bet she used the "Do you know who I am??" defense.
:lol: Yeah, that goes a long way when you're a public defender. We end up getting held in contempt and locked up in the holding cells for a few hours with some regularity, you know.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 29, 2015, 02:34:41 PM
We end up getting held in contempt and locked up in the holding cells for a few hours with some regularity, you know.
For realz?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 29, 2015, 02:31:11 PM
In the five or six states where I've either practiced in or spent a fair amount of time in the criminal courts
I'd like to hear from posters with similar level of experience. Ide?
From my limited experience, arresting defence lawyers in the course of doing their job invariably blows up. The lawyer just gets more publicity and notoriety, and is usually emboldened to do whatever they were doing.
Can't watch the video as am at work but does 'Obstructing a Police Officer' not exist in the US as a charge?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 29, 2015, 02:37:09 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 29, 2015, 02:34:41 PM
We end up getting held in contempt and locked up in the holding cells for a few hours with some regularity, you know.
For realz?
Not each of us, obviously. But lower-court judges are like the absolute monarchs of their courtrooms -- some enlightened and some less so -- and when they unleash their megalomania, it is usually on the public defenders (private defense attorneys being pretty scarce and prosecutors rarely feeling their wrath).
Things have been mostly mellow here, but down south I had a colleague who got handcuffed by court officers and dragged out of one courtroom to be brought over to another one, on orders from the judge, when he (the public defender) was scheduled to be in two courtrooms at the same time.
EDIT: Being held in contempt, as a general matter, is much more common and doesn't always result in any arrest, it could be a fine or even a stern talking-to. On the other hand, it could be a real jail sentence like 30 or 90 days. And judges pretty much have the unchecked ability to find people in contempt within their own courtrooms if they supposedly witnessed an act of contempt taking place in front of them.
Quote from: Warspite on January 29, 2015, 02:48:37 PM
Can't watch the video as am at work but does 'Obstructing a Police Officer' not exist in the US as a charge?
I really don't see how a defense attorney can be considered obstructing or hindering an officer's "investigation" during what is an obvious custodial interrogatory of her client. It was obvious what the cop was trying to do, and trying to score photographs of somebody in a courtroom hallway and calling it an "investigation" is a stretch.
Like I said, the smart cop catches up to Mr. Instagram outside in the courthouse parking lot, and gets them then. But sometimes a cop just has to win the Big Dick Award right then and there.
Quote from: Berkut on January 29, 2015, 01:49:21 PM
So taking someone's picture is arresting them? Is this really the justification you are going with?
I didn't know I was justifying anything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2015, 01:16:42 PM
In plain English, "resisting arrest" does not specify who's arrest is being resisted.
Actually, in plain English, "resisting arrest" refers only to resisting your own arrest. I defy you to find me counter-examples that aren't from the fringe (and thus not "just plain English").
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2015, 02:16:07 PM
That is indeed a difference.
But it's a damn hard difference to prove.
Not in this case.
Quote from: The Brain on January 29, 2015, 02:40:20 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 29, 2015, 02:31:11 PM
In the five or six states where I've either practiced in or spent a fair amount of time in the criminal courts
I'd like to hear from posters with similar level of experience. Ide?
:pinch:
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2015, 03:25:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2015, 02:16:07 PM
That is indeed a difference.
But it's a damn hard difference to prove.
Not in this case.
Disagree.
Even assuming the cop's actions were not justified, the line between "Bad faith" and "stupid" is awfully hard to discern.
Is the defendant required to stand in the hall and let the police photograph?
I don't think the issue here is that he said she was being arrested for resisting arrest - though that's humorous, I think it is fairly clear that the officer meant she was being arrested for the related charge of obstruction of justice. I don't believe that the officer saying the wrong basis for the arrest during the arrest invalidates it, if there was a lawful basis for the arrest. So the question becomes Raz's: were the police doing something they had a right to be doing, and was she interfering with that.
The California Penal code section for obstruction is the same code section as resisting arrest. So the officer gets a semantic foot fault but that is not the problem IMO.
The bigger problem is that there doesn't seem to be a valid basis for an obstruction charge. From the video it appears she was standing next to a man who is her client (and another who is not). It is fair to presume that she had a right to be there in a public building with her client. That is not obstruction. The officer then says: "Can I talk to you for a second." She says: "sure". Officer says" "let's talk over there." She declines. At this point there is no obstruction I can discern as she is under no obligation to honor the officer's preference as to location for a non-custodial conversation (or even engage in conversation at all). Then the officer threatens her and she says "I am OK here.". That doesn't look much like obstruction to me.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2015, 03:31:44 PM
Is the defendant required to stand in the hall and let the police photograph?
Not unless he is placed under arrest. He could cover his face, or walk away or do whatever.
The police are free to take photos of whomever they want to, but those people are not under any obligation to cooperate unless the police place them into custody, even if temporarily. But that would require reading rights, and of course would also trigger right to have counsel present . . .
The
Quote from: Kleves on January 29, 2015, 03:44:20 PM
I don't think the issue here is that he said she was being arrested for resisting arrest - though that's humorous, I think it is fairly clear that the officer meant she was being arrested for the related charge of obstruction of justice. I don't believe that the officer saying the wrong basis for the arrest during the arrest invalidates it, if there was a lawful basis for the arrest. So the question becomes Raz's: were the police doing something they had a right to be doing, and was she interfering with that.
Well, the officer told her to stop doing what she was doing, or she'd be arrested. But what she was doing was advising her client not to let the police take the cop take the photos he wanted to take--so what he was asking her to stop doing was giving legal advice to her client. Pretty sure that's not legit.
I'm a bit puzzled as to why they wanted the pictures anyway. Since they were in the courthouse and he already had a lawyer, I've got to figure he'd already been booked, so they would have his picture and fingerprints on file.
Quote from: dps on January 29, 2015, 06:03:01 PM
I'm a bit puzzled as to why they wanted the pictures anyway. Since they were in the courthouse and he already had a lawyer, I've got to figure he'd already been booked, so they would have his picture and fingerprints on file.
QuoteBut police said the five officers, led by a plainclothes sergeant, were investigating a burglary case in which Tillotson's client and his co-defendant were considered persons of interest.
In short, to use in a photo line up and to ask somebody "Hey, is this the negro?"
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2015, 03:29:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2015, 03:25:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2015, 02:16:07 PM
That is indeed a difference.
But it's a damn hard difference to prove.
Not in this case.
Disagree.
Even assuming the cop's actions were not justified, the line between "Bad faith" and "stupid" is awfully hard to discern.
Not in this case. There's a video.
Quote from: grumbler on January 29, 2015, 07:25:37 PM
Not in this case. There's a video.
Yeah, based on the video I'd be very curious to hear what sort of argument could be made that the arrest was not in bad faith.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2015, 03:48:41 PM
The California Penal code section for obstruction is the same code section as resisting arrest. So the officer gets a semantic foot fault but that is not the problem IMO.
If he was just misquoting the appropriate code section, this evidence might have weight. But he wasn't. He was pretty clearly inventing a charge on which to arrest her because he wanted to arrest her, and wasn't going to let the lack of a charge on which to arrest her stop him. I agree with you that this issue wasn't that resisting arrest was the phony charge on which he arrested her, but rather that he was arresting her on a phony charge to begin with.
Of course, the police department won't see that the problem is that they have given a badge to a man manifestly unfit to carry it; they'll focus on how unfair it is for the press and public to attack a man merely grossly exceeding his authority. Police departments generally seem to be dumber collectively than the dumbest individual among them.
Lawyers should be culled, like helots.
Man, Ide always ends up with the short end of the stick.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2015, 07:59:03 PM
Man, Ide always ends up with the short end of the stick.
Thought he worked at Best Buy. :huh:
I think you are confusing him with Seedy, who did work at best buy for a short period I think.
Seedy and GangstaKitty are making a shiv out of a toothbrush.
Just waiting for yard time.
Quote from: The Brain on January 29, 2015, 02:40:20 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 29, 2015, 02:31:11 PM
In the five or six states where I've either practiced in or spent a fair amount of time in the criminal courts
I'd like to hear from posters with similar level of experience. Ide?
:lmfao:
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 29, 2015, 08:21:36 PM
Seedy and GangstaKitty are making a shiv out of a toothbrush.
*Raz updates his files*
Just call me Tovarishch Kartotekov.
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2015, 03:29:37 PM
Even assuming the cop's actions were not justified, the line between "Bad faith" and "stupid" is awfully hard to discern.
Those are not mutually exclusive options.
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2015, 03:29:37 PM
Disagree.
Even assuming the cop's actions were not justified, the line between "Bad faith" and "stupid" is awfully hard to discern.
That might have worked the
first time this guy was investigated for civil rights violations. Or did you miss the part where the city already narrowly avoided a previous lawsuit along the same lines because of this same officer?
I'm just a junior woodchuck prosecutor, but that arrest screams bullshit all the way to the court of Star Chamber.
NPR blog
QuoteArrested For Resisting Arrest — Yes, It's Possible
Earlier this week in a San Francisco courthouse, a deputy public defender named Jami Tillotson challenged police who were trying to take pictures of her client, and the police handcuffed her and took her away. The public defender's office angrily accused the officer of intimidation, but what caught our attention was the reason for her arrest.
A video of the incident shows the plainclothes policeman telling her, "If you continue with this, I will arrest you for resisting arrest."
She was detained, and San Francisco police say they're now investigating her for a possible charge under a state law that includes resisting arrest, as well as obstructing justice.
The case raises the question: How can you be arrested for resisting arrest? Isn't that like being fired for refusing to be fired?
David L. Carter, a criminology professor and former police officer, says in most cases, it's an aggravating offense. But when resisting arrest is the only charge, as it is in the San Francisco case, Carter is puzzled.
"I question the legitimacy of that," Carter says. "You've got to have the arrest to have the resisting arrest!"
In New York, criminal defense lawyer and former prosecutor Nathaniel Burney believes the plainclothes policeman misspoke. "I think what he meant was 'obstruction of justice,' " he says. "Society has an interest in the police doing their job and catching criminals ... and you're not allowed to stop them from doing their jobs."
But critics of the police say both of these charges — obstruction of justice and resisting arrest — can be abused by police to justify groundless arrests. Burney says these charges sometimes are invoked by police who are trying to maintain their status as, as he puts it, "Boss Dog."
"There is this — it's not necessarily an evil mentality — but it is a mentality that, 'I am in charge, and you shall not contradict me, you're going to do what I say, at all costs,' " he says. "And if you don't do what they say, well now all of a sudden you're a bad person and they've got to arrest you for that."
In private, police worry about maintaining their authority, because they believe it's dangerous to be seen letting people defy them. That may be what happened last summer in Seattle, when an elderly man refused to comply with a police officer's command to drop a golf club. She said he waved it at her menacingly; he said he was using it as a walking stick. Once he dug in and refused her order, she felt compelled to arrest him. But when the dash-cam video of the encounter came out this week, the department apologized.
Carter, the former officer, agrees that police sometimes feel they have to arrest someone to "save face." But he says some unjustified arrests also come out of officer fatigue — a breakdown of what he calls "resiliency" toward challenging members of the public, especially in protest situations.
"Resisting arrest" charges may also be a way to lend legitimacy to controversial arrests. In the post-Ferguson protests, people reported cases of police loudly yelling "stop resisting" at people they arrested, even when no resistance was apparent.
Burney isn't surprised by those accounts. "I have seen plenty of situations where not just police, but anybody will be saying the words that they want people to think is going on."
But he says there are also situations in which a civilian and an officer simply have different understandings of what's happening.
"The police officer sees it as resisting," he says. "You know, 'You're not doing what I'm telling you to do right this instant.' "
And if a civilian complies slowly, or reluctantly, that difference of opinion can lead to an arrest.
OK, I'm not going to challenge the efficacy and occasional usefulness of the various "Contempt of Cop" charges--my personal favorite was Disturbance of the Public Peace, as your shenanigans only needed to attract a single passersby--as they do come in handy sometimes; but I really think you have to question not only the competence but intelligence of a detective that pulls that kind of move IN FRONT OF A DEFENSE ATTORNEY. It didn't matter if it was a private attorney or the PD's office, those fuckers were like sunlight, crucifixes and kryptonite rolled into one. They know more about the law than you do as a cop, and you just didn't risk shit in front of them that could place your case, or even you, in jeopardy. But reading more about this particular cop, he's an unprofessional goof anyway. Chief of Police probably had kittens.
QuoteBurney says these charges sometimes are invoked by police who are trying to maintain their status as, as he puts it, "Boss Dog."
Holy fucking shit, that guy's a genius.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 29, 2015, 03:08:22 PM
But sometimes a cop just has to win the Big Dick Award right then and there.
Holy fucking shit, that guy obviously doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, or he'd be employed by now.
If only Captain Obvious was a real position...
I'm qualified for Supreme Obvious Commander, Allied Obvious Forces.
I bet getting a cop fired is one of those things that really make a defense attorney's day.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2015, 09:12:05 PM
I bet getting a cop fired is one of those things that really make a defense attorney's day.
Actually, defense attorneys hate it. A cop you can get fired is a cop whose cop work is sloppy enough to free your clients all the damn time.
It makes a prosecutor's day when a cop that a defense attorney can get fired actually gets fired, cause then you don't need to see his sloppy ass around again.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2015, 09:12:05 PM
I bet getting a cop fired is one of those things that really make a defense attorney's day.
A bad cop can get everybody around him fired. Or killed. Getting the bad ones out really makes everybody's day.
I wonder how much all this is going to cost?
The cop will probably end up with a reprimand and the PD will get off and then sue for damages I expect. All of this on the SF taxpayers' dime.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 31, 2015, 04:45:04 AM
I wonder how much all this is going to cost?
The cop will probably end up with a reprimand and the PD will get off and then sue for damages I expect. All of this on the SF taxpayers' dime.
I hope not, since that would imply more idiots on the force than just this guy- the PD suing for damages would be a pretty hard sell, considering they fairly quickly circled the wagons around this guy. At this point, the city's going to be lucky to avoid a lawsuit for civil rights violations.
Sadly, the trend so far has been that while the cop will most likely be dismissed, he'll probably find another job as a police officer (possibly even within the same force- though I doubt it, since the entire prosecutor's office is likely unimpressed with his shenanigans) within a year. Lately, the police union is just too damned strong to get a guy like this out of the blue permanently.
I will bet you all the quatloos in Yi's Ameritrade account that absolutely nothing happens to this cop of a lasting nature.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 31, 2015, 07:30:39 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 31, 2015, 04:45:04 AM
I wonder how much all this is going to cost?
The cop will probably end up with a reprimand and the PD will get off and then sue for damages I expect. All of this on the SF taxpayers' dime.
I hope not, since that would imply more idiots on the force than just this guy- the PD suing for damages would be a pretty hard sell, considering they fairly quickly circled the wagons around this guy. At this point, the city's going to be lucky to avoid a lawsuit for civil rights violations.
Sadly, the trend so far has been that while the cop will most likely be dismissed, he'll probably find another job as a police officer (possibly even within the same force- though I doubt it, since the entire prosecutor's office is likely unimpressed with his shenanigans) within a year. Lately, the police union is just too damned strong to get a guy like this out of the blue permanently.
:rolleyes: The other PD.
Yes, sorry about the confusion, I meant the public defender could sue.....she certainly has a grievance.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 31, 2015, 04:45:04 AM
I wonder how much all this is going to cost?
Here, you'll enjoy this piece; it has links to several larger works. I highly recommend the Baltimore Sun expose on their lawsuit issues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/01/u-s-cities-pay-out-millions-to-settle-police-lawsuits/
QuoteThe city has spent $5.7 million on settlements and awards, and another $5.8 million in legal fees. Were it not for the statutory limit (which frankly seems both low and unfair), the former figure would likely be a lot higher.
The Chicago Sun-Times reported earlier this year that the city has payed out nearly half a billion dollars in settlements over the past decade, and spent $84.6 million in fees, settlements, and awards last year. The Chicago Police Department is about three times the size of the Baltimore PD. Chicago the city has about four times as many people as Baltimore. Crunch those numbers as you wish. Bloomberg News reported that in 2011, Los Angeles paid out $54 million, while New York paid out a whopping $735 million, although those figures include negligence and other claims unrelated to police abuse. Oakland Police Beat reported in April that the city had paid out $74 million to settle 417 lawsuits since 1990. That's a little more than $3 million per year. The Denver Post reported in August that the Mile High City paid $13 million over 10 years. The Dallas Morning News reported in May that the city has forked over $6 million since 2011. And last month, Minneapolis Public Radio put that city's payout at $21 million since 2003.
When I was a rookie, I was told by one of the sergeants that a cop that had never been listed as a defendant in a city lawsuit was a cop that wasn't doing his job.
When I asked why someone couldn't try to do their job properly without getting himself, the department and the city sued, I was being a smart-assed troublemaker. But then again, I never saw the sport in beating on negroes either, so hey. Not a team player, doesn't work and play well with others, etc.
Cheers Cdm. We tax people, many of them on low and marginal incomes, and some of their taxes go on paying for this sort of nonsense..............it raises my BP :mad: