-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Things like this make police look bad. None strong enough to do the right thing.
- Thread starter Yaki
- Start date
eye95
Well-known member
The woman is right that the focus should be on holding the officer accountable for his actions. Furthermore, the officers who harassed citizens meeting in support of the woman need to be disciplined, along with any leadership of fostered or turned a blind eye to that deliberate intimidation tactic.
Rochester PD has one chance to defuse this situation. Will they take it?
Rochester PD has one chance to defuse this situation. Will they take it?
xd shooter
Regular Member
Holding breath? 
Badger Johnson
Regular Member
Glad to hear charges dismissed, but they messed up charging her. Without being charged, it would have been harder to file a suit on her part, I think. (For example just cuffed and detained and released).
So she got arrested for whatever it was... then the charges were dropped... then there was a meeting in support of her and her lawsuit and the cops show up and write tickets out to everyone!??!?
That's a legitimate use of police resources and 4-5 patrols? Really? That's type of retaliation should NOT be tolerated.
That's a legitimate use of police resources and 4-5 patrols? Really? That's type of retaliation should NOT be tolerated.
hermannr
Regular Member
HK: She was arrested for vidio taping a traffic stop from the curb in front of her house, when asked to move back she moved back a few feet onto her own lawn, then the Officer "ordered" her back into her house and to stop taping the police action, then he arrested her for "obstruction".
Deanimator
Regular Member
In a word, "no".
Deanimator
Regular Member
When police falsely arrest someone in this way, it's the equivalent of an armed robber sending the prosecutor a video tape of a robbery with a notarized confession.
FOIA request EVERYTHING and go over it with an electron microscope. ANY evidence of false statements by police needs to be brought to the department's attention... not with any expectation of punishment by the DEPARTMENT, but to impose upon them a duty under Brady to notify future defendants of that cop's mendacity problem. Of course when you do that, he may NEVER testify to ANYTHING again, EVER. No prosecutor with two braincells to rub together is going to put somebody on the stand who'll be ripped to shreds by the defense on veracity and character grounds.
I imagine that it's pretty hard to advance in law enforcement if no prosecutor will even let you testify to your own name on the stand...
Gunslinger
Regular Member
There are two separate torts here: false arrest and malicious prosecution. That charges were brought and then dropped is all that's necessary to make the second charge have standing. Once they detained her illegally, the first charge was made. She was physically harmed, as well. The tort of battery comes into play. While she could sue under 1983, this is a 'very' strong case in state court for seeking exemplary damages--especially with a jury. The follow up unlawful action by his thug buddies can lead to conspiracy charges, as well. These are Federal, criminal charges. Doubtful any fed prosecutor will have the balls to follow up, but it is further evidence of knowing, unlawful activity and conspiracy to harass and intimidate--particularly if any of the cars belonged to witnesses of the illegal arrest.
The dicks in Rochester government will fall all over themselves to settle this. This woman will walk away with a bundle. So will her lawyer, of course.
paramedic70002
Regular Member
Here is her "crime" on YouTube:
[video=youtube;a7ZkFZkejv8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7ZkFZkejv8[/video]
[video=youtube;a7ZkFZkejv8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7ZkFZkejv8[/video]
Deanimator
Regular Member
The idea that the Rochester PD will do ANYTHING to "make this right", at least not without a metaphorical gun to their heads is laughable.
The retaliatory ticketing is ABSOLUTE proof of the culture at play inside the Rochester PD. It's very "Chicagoesque".
The ONLY way anything will happen is if it's IMPOSED from above by the mayor and or city council under direct threat of civil litigation. It's PAINFULLY obvious that the Rochester PD considers itself a hostile army of occupation. They should be treated as such.
The retaliatory ticketing is ABSOLUTE proof of the culture at play inside the Rochester PD. It's very "Chicagoesque".
The ONLY way anything will happen is if it's IMPOSED from above by the mayor and or city council under direct threat of civil litigation. It's PAINFULLY obvious that the Rochester PD considers itself a hostile army of occupation. They should be treated as such.
eye95
Well-known member
It is an assumption that the top leadership instigated or condoned the retaliation. Over the course of the next few weeks to months, we will find out based on how the leadership talks about the original police action and the subsequent onslaught on supporters of the victim and on how they treat the officers who undertook these abusive actions.
I hope they decry the actions and seek to make the woman whole. I don't think they will, but I don't pretend to already know where they stand. Such thinking would betray bias.
I hope they decry the actions and seek to make the woman whole. I don't think they will, but I don't pretend to already know where they stand. Such thinking would betray bias.
riverrat10k
Regular Member
I disagree with, you eye. I think the actions show a clear and unequivocable corruption and statist and facist attitude toward the citizenry. Original altercation, bad cop. Retalitory ticketing, culture of corruption. You are always such an apologist for illegal behavior by LEO's, and seem to doubt the motives of the free man.
Deanimator
Regular Member
The mere fact that the retaliation took place out in the open is a SURE indicator of what the organizational culture will tolerate, or indeed reward. Either the cops involved had a reasonable belief that nothing bad would happen to them or their mentally ill.
eye95
Well-known member
riverrat10k
Regular Member
Disagree, again, eye, and agree with deanimator. Prejudice? No. Objectivity? Yes. How often do you run an experiment before you are comfortable with the results?
Clearly, a culture of corruption and an "us vs. the civilians" retaliation. While I agree with your caution in jumping to conclusions, someone on another thread quoted Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (well known libertarian print and blog).
Paraphrased "Oh, yet ANOTHER isolated incident."
We are not saints. But then neither are the cops. Yeah, just another isolated incident of LEO overreach. Sure.
Clearly, a culture of corruption and an "us vs. the civilians" retaliation. While I agree with your caution in jumping to conclusions, someone on another thread quoted Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (well known libertarian print and blog).
Paraphrased "Oh, yet ANOTHER isolated incident."
We are not saints. But then neither are the cops. Yeah, just another isolated incident of LEO overreach. Sure.
Deanimator
Regular Member
So then rather than having made a rational judgment that their behavior wouldn't be meaningfully punished, you believe that the cops were insane?Oh. A "sure" indicator.
Prejudice can be so easily justified.
No sane person does something like that without making the SLIGHTEST effort to conceal it unless they reasonably believe that there will be no serious consequences.
And why would they believe that there would be no serious consequences?
Because either they were TOLD there would be none, or by observation of others they SAW that there would be none.
The cops were crazy? Is that your best and final answer?
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
Once again, a rational argument cannot be made. So the opposing view is invented in a way that can be easily dismissed.
Moving on.
Deanimator
Regular Member
Note the UTTER inability to refute that which was said, or even to merely offer an alternate theory of the crime.
Deanimator
Regular Member
Giving somebody the "benefit of the doubt" requires that there BE doubt.
There's no question AT ALL of what ANY of these cops did.
Now either they ALL decided to fall on their swords in a kamikaze/suicide bomber-like vendetta against the victim in this case, KNOWING that it was career suicide, OR they had a reasoned belief based on experience and observation of what was tolerated in that agency that they faced no dire consequences.
ONE of those things has to be the case.
And option two does NOT preclude management throwing them under the bus for CYA. They wouldn't be the first cops in history following the "party line" to be sacrificed when the "party line" either needed to change or APPEAR to change. The names Genrikh Yagoda and Nikolai Yezhov come to mind...
There's no question AT ALL of what ANY of these cops did.
Now either they ALL decided to fall on their swords in a kamikaze/suicide bomber-like vendetta against the victim in this case, KNOWING that it was career suicide, OR they had a reasoned belief based on experience and observation of what was tolerated in that agency that they faced no dire consequences.
ONE of those things has to be the case.
And option two does NOT preclude management throwing them under the bus for CYA. They wouldn't be the first cops in history following the "party line" to be sacrificed when the "party line" either needed to change or APPEAR to change. The names Genrikh Yagoda and Nikolai Yezhov come to mind...
Last edited: