PleaseBlitz

I for one enjoy this thread much more now that it has updates with all of the bull**** cops do on a literally daily basis that should not be tolerated and would not be, but for the fact that the person doing it has a badge and a gun (and probably an inferiority complex). Kudos to all involved. :clap Just to lighten the mood, this is an old, but a goody: http://www.theonion.com/article/insecure-frustrated-bully-with-something-to-prove--33427 Insecure, Frustrated Bully With Something To Prove Considering Career In Law Enforcement RALEIGH, NC—Calling it his lifelong dream, local man Brendan Lockhart, an insecure and perpetually frustrated bully who believes he has something to prove to the world, told reporters Thursday that he is seriously considering a career in law enforcement. Lockhart, a recent high-school graduate who sources confirmed is plagued by resentment, self-doubt, unexpected fits of rage, and has always had a penchant for tormenting those who are smaller and weaker than him, explained that he feels he is well suited to serve as a police officer. “I’ve always wanted to be a cop,” said Lockhart, whose paranoia and inferiority complex constantly haunt him, leading him to lash out at others in order to convince them he is in control. “I know it’s a tough line of work, but I think I’ve got what it takes to earn my shield and get out there and keep the peace.” “This is the job I was born to do,” continued the man whose main goal in life is to prove to others that he is strong, confident, and not afraid. Friends and family confirmed that Lockhart, an unpredictable, petty individual who frequently loses his temper when he feels he is being threatened or disrespected, has in recent months been inquiring into joining the ranks of the Raleigh Police Department. In this role, the man with a massive chip on his shoulder and no visible sense of empathy would be tasked with peacefully resolving disputes and evenhandedly administering justice to members of the community over whom he would have official power.

I would say that wrestling is arguably the dominant discipline throughout MMA history. I am biased, i grew up wrestling. But many of the greats of the sports either started as wrestlers, then added something to their arsenal that made them great (Chuck, Bones) or just used their wrestling ability and athleticism to dominate guys (Hughes, Hendo, Randy, Dan Severn (for the old school fans)).

Plus the bar in this thread is "cops that correctly did what they were paid to do."

Rhonda Rousey may be my favorite non-DC athlete. The video at this link is NSFW (language) and amazing. http://www.vulture.com/2015/08/ronda-rousey-to-star-in-her-own-biopic.html

There are not criminal charges, but there is an active inquiry against the arresting officer and the other 5 officers present with the SF Office of Citizen Complaints (which reports directly to the chief of police) and the ACLU is considering civil charges. But yea, totally unfounded. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons an attorney would not be allowed to block access. Its just that none are applicable in the case at issue. And yes, I am well aware that most people hate lawyers. ****ing public defenders man, providing constitutionally guaranteed legal counsel to poor people who (might be) CRIMINALS (probably).

I totally agree with that. Still way too many assholes though. No, not a defense attorney, they don't make enough $.

Because they were BOTH "persons of interest" in a different crime. Or maybe its because every week a video emerges of cops beating the **** out of people for no good reason, or because a black person has died in police custody or shot/choked for being black? :whoknows: Sadly, its common enough that we have a thread specifically for this subject. The profession of cop attracts assholes, specifically bullies.

Well, I would posit that by "he's not represented by us" she means that there is not an attorney from the public defender's office with that guy at the present time (so they should wait to interrogate him until there is one). Not "he's not represented by us (and never will be)."

I just don't see how you get to the conclusion that the PO was only interested in the other one. Then why didn't the cop just say so? :whoknows:

LOL! This is a fantastic insight into why most of the country hates cops now. The charges against the police have not yet been resolved. There ARE NO charges against the attorney. Anyways, you can bet that anything the police got from the represented suspect after the attorney was arrested will not be admissible in court, most certainly not in CA. Also, who doesn't love a good break? She's still getting paid, and now she somewhat famous in the legal community (which will help her career). Sounds like she got a pretty good deal. She was referring to one of two different guys (there is a guy in a blue polo and a guy in a black jacket), and you keep making a distinction that the police were only interested in the other guy. I don't see how you get to that conclusion AND the articles indicate that BOTH were subsequently questioned. Are you insinuating that she just happened to be there and neither guy is her client?

Good research, does it apply to attorneys advocating for their client? Doubtful, because on its face, a lawyer telling a client not to answer a question would be resisting arrest according to that law, and that would be antithetical to the 5th Amendment and therefore preempted.

Thank you for proving my entire point. According to you, arresting someone under false pretenses is legal, and now the cops are free to interrogate the black guys without the pesky lawyer lawyering things up. Thanks Dirty Harry.

I think his experience may involve too many movies.

So why didnt the law dogs charge her with ANYTHING? ACTUAL LAW PLEASE.

The arrest was for resisting arrest. I feel that this is pretty clearly stated by the arresting officer at 32 seconds into the video where he says, quote, "if you continue with this, i'll arrest you for resisting arrest." Ya'll can deflect to obstruction if ya wish, but she was not arrested nor later charged with obstruction, she was arrested for resisting arrest and never charged with anything. You are just making up a post hoc rationalization for an egregiously ridiculous abuse of police power. If that is too hard for you to understand: If the attorney did anything wrong, why wasn't she charged with anything?

I love that you are only citing to your "experience" and you won't even say what that is, and now you are demanding "actual law please." Hilarious. I don't even understand the question you asked. Actual English please.

For 5th Amendment purposes, "interrogation" means any "words or conduct that the police should have known would reasonably influence an individual to respond." In other words, asking questions IS interrogation, as DogoWar stated above. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980). http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/police-interrogation-and-confessions/rhode-island-v-innis-2/

I guess you should point out where the police make the distinction between the 2 men and say "we aren't worried about your client, just this other guy." That doesn't happen. Instead, the police officer IMMEDIATELY threatens the attorney when she challenges him: "Look, you can either step aside . . ." The men in custody certainly could have said something, it appears they decided to just let the white people in suits do the talking. SHAME ON THEM FOR NOT VERBALLY ASSERTING THEIR RIGHTS IN THAT SITUATION. Further, the fact that there was a separate charge may or may not have just been an excuse for the police to get the suspects away from the attorney so they could question them (about either or both charges) without the benefit of counsel. Essentially a backdoor way to violate the **** out of their rights. The attorney knows this is what is happening, and she isn't buying it (nor should she). So where this stands is the attorney spent an hour handcuffed to a wall, no charges were filed against her (because she didn't do anything wrong), a complaint was filed against the cop (not his first, he was previously accused of racial profiling by another cop after he stopped and arrested an African-American off-duty police officer, lol), and the ACLU is threatening a lawsuit as well. And the chief of police issued a half-assed apology as well. But yea, the cops did everything by the book here, for sure.

Yep, that was stated by the news reports that accompanied the video. They are linked above.

Years of experience doing what? Violating people's civil rights, im guessing? Perhaps years of experience commenting on the internet about stuff you have no clue about? Regardless, I know (and have cited to) the actual law, which is way better than your "experience," no matter what it is in.

The first one. The test is whether a reasonably prudent person would believe that his/her freedom of movement is significantly restrained, given the totality of the circumstances. Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994).

Yup, thats why i said "if they ask for a lawyer" and I didn't think it was necessary to get into what "in custody" and "interrogation" means, the two requirements that trigger Miranda rights. I think those are both pretty clearly met in this case. They were almost certainly in custody, which doesn't mean handcuffs, it means the person does not feel free to leave. See Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 (1976). Pretty sure being in a courthouse surrounded by police would meet this test. "Being charged" has literally nothing to do with anything. The rest of your post is just incorrect, and i have no idea where you are coming up with it, please feel free to cite to anything to back up your statements.

Do you have anything to back this assertion up? I don't believe what you are saying is true (and I am a lawyer). If someone is in custody, and they ask for a lawyer, the cops have to stop interrogating that person until the lawyer arrives. There is a ****ton of case law on this, including Miranda v. Arizona, which is where the Miranda Warning comes from, which includes "You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning."

Well, as you can see at the end of the video, after the cops take the lawyer away, they take photos of both of the black guys and then also question BOTH guys. Per Above the Law: And, of course, witnesses report that Inspector Stansbury did go ahead and ask questions after the guy’s lawyer gets led away. There’s the subtlety of the job right there: do something that won’t raise the ire of a court to get a foot in the door, use that to intimidate, then get the target to start volunteering information in a vain effort to make the intimidation end. Standard procedure. Tillotson knew what was going down and got chained to a wall for an hour for her efforts. "The thing is, the video starts after the questioning has occurred." I heard the same argument when Walter Scott got shot in the back 8 times while running away.

This is complete bull****, yes they absolutely can. A person is entitled to legal counsel in most cases, police can't just say "go away, you are stopping us from working this guy over." THIS IS WHY the charges against the lawyer were dismissed and a counter complaint was filed. This is taught the first year of law school. And its not like the police were in hot pursuit of the guy, they were STANDING IN A COURT HOUSE.