If people wonder why cops are being disrespected, they should just watch this video. The abusive tactics police use bring it on to themselves. Makes me think everyone should be armed with a camera as well as a gun.
Some people just have to make sure everybody else in the room (hallway) knows exactly who is in charge! And will abuse the hell out of their "authority", and everyone else, to prove a point. Power monger.
A typical psychological profile of a cop is someone with very little abilities and low drive, while being risk averse. Having a gun and the protection of the State (and the Brotherhood) is a quick way of achieving the power that their lack of ability prevents them from gaining otherwise. A typical cop has the same profile as a criminal, except that the criminal is willing to take risks.
In this respect, no more than we have been historicaly. Machiavelli advised the Prince to employ expendable paramilitary thugs to protect the State. To limit one's disappointment level, we need to always remember that the State's thugs work for State, not the citizens. They only use the citizens' money.
I can't even comment on what I just saw, I'd be furious. There has to be a lot more to it than in the video and article presented. Would they have arrested me too had I asked them to stop? I'm glad I wasn't there. I'm more curious as to how this whole thing progresses.
Though there appears to be no issue about video taping the incident, know that Glik v Cunniffe, settles that question: (Wikipedia) "The court first addressed the question of whether Glik's First Amendment rights had been violated. It noted that "we have previously recognized that the videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties" and held that Glik had a constitutional right to videotape a public official in a public place."
Ah, the law. But what happens when the law says you have a right to do something you know if you do it you face serious retaliation and you elect not to endure it? Then, de jure you have rights but de facto you don’t. For example, the Texas disabled female school teacher who has been in the news who was twice dragged out of her car for no reason by the Border Patrol. She is making noise. Most won’t.
I carry a one-page precis (wow, haven't used that word since the eighth grade) of each, Glik v Cunniffe and Title 42 USC Sec 1983 in my truck for reading material for LEOs when and if.
I also provided copies of each to our County Attorney (in Wyoming) when I learned about them. Many times, law enforcement is working on the same premise as our good friend, Jon Gruber, playing on the ignorance and stupidity of the public.
I am glad that this happened and that it is being seen in video and news. The best way to reinforce a legal right is to have someone step their tiny tiny toe over the line...and then smash toe with hammer.
Either they are ignorant of the law, which I doubt, or they wanted to teach Tillotson a lesson. Either way they were dead wrong and will inevitably show up in a negative way.
I don't know about that. I have a cousin living in SF and while I enjoyed the city, the sights and the restaurants, political-wise and otherwise the place was a complete looney bin. They are so way out there that I can actually believe that a cop would think he could get away with cuffing a public defender.
$$$$$$"Please. do"$$$$$ (To the camera) $$$$$"He's going to arrest me."$$$$$ smirk smirk smirking in handcuffs $$$$$$$$$down the road$$$$$$$$ She's thinking "See you saps in court."
What was the first thing they were going to arrest her for but she resisted. How they can charge her with resisting arrest if there was no original reason to arrest her?
You need to be perfectly clear on the fact that when a police officer says, "Step over here" (or "Stand there" etc.) you are under arrest. Anytime that you do not have absolute liberty of action, you are under arrest. They do not have to touch you. Just giving you an order is arresting you. When Jami Tillotson refused to do what they wanted, she was resisting arrest.
Don't they need to pronounce the words "under arrest" before an arrest becomes a fact? And the Miranda rights somewhere in there? Oh, scratch that - what rights? Since when do slaves and servants have rights? Privileges, perhaps, especially for the privileged, but rights? No, we have none.
If you watched the Youtube, you would notice that she offered absolutely no resistance. When threatened with arrest while maintaining her representation, she said 'Go ahead'.
Zen, that was in the _second_ moment. In the previous moment, she failed to comply with the command to step aside. By speaking the command, the police arrested her. By failing to comply, she resisted.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity ...
This means the INDIVIDUAL, not the agency he works for.
A lawyer knows the magic words, like "Speak 'Friend' and enter." Standing up to authority is always easier for OTHER people to do. In Berlin 1943 there was a protest of Aryan women wanting their Jewish husbands released. (Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenstrass...) Nice to applaud now... Harder to do then... Same here. We can only support her now. We were not there to stand with her then. Still and all, she had the same status as they did, and was able to stand her ground, though it seems that her client was interrogated nonetheless. And this was for shoplifting, a minor crime against property. God forbid that the accused was charged with a political crime.
Sorry, Zen, I was trying to say too much in too few words. The public defender held her ground and was not threatened by the arrest because she knew that she would be released, i.e., knowing the magic. Jami Tillotson was able to remain calm because she held the same social status as the police. Her concern was for her client. The police were successful in separating her from her client.
Being arrested for resisting arrest when you are not resisting arrest is just a way for them to put you in custody, which they did.
Furthermore, nice as it is for us to be outraged by this violation, the fact remains that none of us was there. Cheering from the sidelines makes us feel good, but achieves little. I cited a very strong case from the worst of times in which authority was confronted. Again, it is nice of us to doff our hats now.
Like any other harm or crime, any remedies must come after the fact. What we need is a way to prevent the damage before it occurs.
As for the police, they may be specially restrained from taking pictures, but I am not aware of that, if it is so. I do know that you lose your presumption of privacy when you leave your home. Anyone can take your picture in public. That being so, the police were just being bullies. They did not need to confront and arrest Tillotson. They could have taken their pictures and been done with it.
You have no expectation that someone won't take a photograph in public. That doesn't mean you have to move to make way for someone to take his picture.
Too often good police work goes down the legal tubes, when a public defender pulls some BS technicality out of his/her butt....
I also provided copies of each to our County Attorney (in Wyoming) when I learned about them. Many times, law enforcement is working on the same premise as our good friend, Jon Gruber, playing on the ignorance and stupidity of the public.
Jan, smashy-smashy
(To the camera)
$$$$$"He's going to arrest me."$$$$$
smirk smirk smirking in handcuffs
$$$$$$$$$down the road$$$$$$$$
She's thinking "See you saps in court."
In this case I have resisted arrest. Huh.
Jan
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity ...
This means the INDIVIDUAL, not the agency he works for.
Being arrested for resisting arrest when you are not resisting arrest is just a way for them to put you in custody, which they did.
Furthermore, nice as it is for us to be outraged by this violation, the fact remains that none of us was there. Cheering from the sidelines makes us feel good, but achieves little. I cited a very strong case from the worst of times in which authority was confronted. Again, it is nice of us to doff our hats now.
Like any other harm or crime, any remedies must come after the fact. What we need is a way to prevent the damage before it occurs.
As for the police, they may be specially restrained from taking pictures, but I am not aware of that, if it is so. I do know that you lose your presumption of privacy when you leave your home. Anyone can take your picture in public. That being so, the police were just being bullies. They did not need to confront and arrest Tillotson. They could have taken their pictures and been done with it.