Major Harris Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Oh ok, i thought the world was about to reverse direction 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Not good enough. I want him tried for false arrest. not really possible w/o a clear violation of law, qualified immunity for cops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) The thing that struck me most when watching the "arrest" tape for Sandra Bland (quotes because that was hardly a lawful arrest), was when he says she's under arrest and is trying to force her out of the car, she asks what she's under arrest for, and there's just this period of like 3 seconds where he says nothing, followed by him just repeating his order to get out of the car. That is so unbelievably absurd and stupid on the part of the officer that he should be fired on the spot just for that BS. If you cannot tell someone who you are forcefully removing from their car what you are arresting them for MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BE ARRESTING THEM! I mean, there are failures all over the darn place on this, it's a textbook case of systematic failure at all levels. - Officer doesn't know the law - Paperwork is wonky at the jail - $5K bail for a traffic infraction!? - video is glitchy/edited upon release - If paperwork is accurate (which, at least half of it isn't because its inconsistent, but still, should have erred on the side of caution anyway, or gotten confirmation), she should have been on suicide watch (15 minute check-in, not 1 hour) And that's without going into the potential issues elsewhere that suggest foul play, this is just the stuff that is apparent on its face, the utter incompetence. Edited July 23, 2015 by DogofWar1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 not really possible w/o a clear violation of law, qualified immunity for copsWhat about it wasn't clear? The part where she was arrested for the crime of resisting arrest and nothing else, which means that any claims she was resisting arrest would have to be matched by a claim she was being falsely arrested? How about the fact that she never resisted arrest? Its a clear on-tape example of a police officer arresting someone because it was convenient for him, not because it was legal. Maybe he didn't know that wasn't legal... but as they love to say, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. ESPECIALLY someone who is charged with upholding the law. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 she both resisted and assaulted the officer who had a clearly lawful reason to interact with her. odd the officer reports injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 she both resisted and assaulted the officer who had a clearly lawful reason to interact with her. odd the officer reports injury. Are you aware we are talking about the lawyer who was arrested for helping her client? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Are you aware we are talking about the lawyer who was arrested for helping her client?Well, what'd you expect? A white girl helping out 2 thugs? Of course she was resisting. And intentionally race baiting. /sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Are you aware we are talking about the lawyer who was arrested for helping her client? does it matter? Ya still ain't gonna get a charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 does it matter?Does it usually matter when circumstances are completely different? Ya still ain't gonna get a chargeNo ****, hence my dissatisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Does it usually matter when circumstances are completely different? No ****, hence my dissatisfaction. Well the situations were similar in that someone was again obstructing a officer in performance of his duty......just cause she is white and a public defender doesn't make her real bright either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) Well the situations were similar in that someone was again obstructing a officer in performance of his duty......just cause she is white and a public defender doesn't make her real bright either. *sigh* Okay, you're right, Lawyering is Obstruction of Justice (hence her being arrested for Resisting Arrest). Edited July 24, 2015 by PokerPacker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 *sigh* Okay, you're right, Lawyering is Obstruction of Justice (hence her being arrested for Resisting Arrest). lawyers cannot interfere with a active investigation by standing in the way, she could step aside and still offer counsel. a lawyer cannot prevent pictures being taken nor questions being asked everyone has a place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) lawyers cannot interfere with a active investigation by standing in the way, she could step aside and still offer counsel. a lawyer cannot prevent pictures being taken nor questions being asked everyone has a place This is the problem in the Tillotson case, the officer was NOT doing his duty, at least not in a reasonable manner. He never told Tillotson he was investigating a separate matter, it appeared as though he was questioning her client on the matter for which she represented him, during which it was her duty to defend her client from violations of his rights. So his duty to investigate bumped up against her duty to protect her client. They arrested her for obstructing an investigation which she had no notice of, and which the police could easily have provided her notice of, but didn't. And that's on the police, frankly. It's absurd to blame a lawyer for not being able to read an officer's mind. _______________________ Another wrinkle in the Bland case: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandra-bland-swallowed-or-smoked-large-quantity-of-marijuana-in-jail-da_55b12ba9e4b08f57d5d3f041?cps=gravity_5043_-3505967028057514712 How in the world does one manage to swallow or smoke a large quantity of marijuana while in prison? Someone screwed up big time, and that's assuming no foul play. Edited July 24, 2015 by DogofWar1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 They need to make a law that prevents officers from arresting citizens for "resisting arrest" when the officer isn't actually in the act of arresting the citizen for a crime. It seems to be a loophole that police departments are actively and flagrantly abusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 They need to make a law that prevents officers from arresting citizens for "resisting arrest" when the officer isn't actually in the act of arresting the citizen for a crime. It seems to be a loophole that police departments are actively and flagrantly abusing. Well, in most states, you are allowed to use reasonable force to repel unlawful force an officer is using. Of course, it's tough to show that an officer was using unlawful force without a video or something, since cops can generally come up with reasonable suspicion on the fly if they truly want to (and are bright enough to). And then you've got states like Texas which say resisting an arrest, even an unlawful one, is still a crime. It's crazy, but then again, that's Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 This is the problem in the Tillotson case, the officer was NOT doing his duty, at least not in a reasonable manner. _______________________ Another wrinkle in the Bland case: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandra-bland-swallowed-or-smoked-large-quantity-of-marijuana-in-jail-da_55b12ba9e4b08f57d5d3f041?cps=gravity_5043_-3505967028057514712 How in the world does one manage to swallow or smoke a large quantity of marijuana while in prison? Someone screwed up big time, and that's assuming no foul play. You have some strange ideas about reasonable., and unlawful Perhaps she ate it earlier? they are simply going from a partial statement.....more detail to follow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 You have some strange ideas about reasonable., and unlawful Perhaps she ate it earlier? they are simply going from a partial statement.....more detail to follow I think you've got the strange idea. People aren't mind readers. If you're representing your client and a cop walks up and starts trying to ask questions, it's not unreasonable to expect it was tied to the present case. If the questioning had been tied to the present case, then Tillotson had a duty to protect her client's rights; she could have been disciplined by the state bar for failure to protect her client from questioning in violation of his rights. The fact that no charges were filed against Ms. Tillotson demonstrates the cops understood they screwed up by not telling her there was a separate investigation for which they were doing questioning. Ultimately, neither side in the Tillotson situation seems to have taken unlawful action. However, one side was incompetent, and that side was the police. As for the Bland case, I mean, the text message seems pretty cut and dry. "Looking at the autopsy results and toxicology, it appears she swallowed a large quantity of marijuana or smoked it in the jail," Mathis said in a text message to Lambert that the attorney provided to Reuters. I suppose the tests could have been wrong, but generally, tests can figure out the time-frame in which the marijuana was ingested/smoked with decent certainty. If it'd happened earlier, they'd probably have been able to tell, or at least would have not said "in the jail," but rather been more noncommittal about it. Moreover, one of the most popular tricks cops use to get the right to search a vehicle is pulling the ole "I smell marijuana." If she had smoked it, and probably even if she'd ingested it before being put into police custody, odds are one of the cops would have smelled it said something at the scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Why does it seem so many police officers become agitated beyond control from a little attitude from citizens? You'd think during their training they would be told a lot that they will encounter angry/annoyed/frustrated people on a daily basis during routine traffic stops because it is likely resulting in a ticket that will cost them several hundred dollars. It's like the entire "de-escalation"/"keep the peace" aspect of the job goes right out the window because someone gave them a little lip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Tillotson clearly interfered and was properly detained and released w/o charge because it was not worth the hassle.....as usual. Perhaps that is why Bland was blowing smoke?.... doesn't really matter I would assume ingesting it takes longer to enter bloodstream than smoking, not my line. Why does it seem so many police officers become agitated beyond control from a little attitude from citizens? You'd think during their training they would be told a lot that they will encounter angry/annoyed/frustrated people on a daily basis during routine traffic stops because it is likely resulting in a ticket that will cost them several hundred dollars. It's like the entire "de-escalation"/"keep the peace" aspect of the job goes right out the window because someone gave them a little lip. Everyone has a limit, but you are certainly correct that is what is taught and expected.....hence his suspension. The heat probably doesn't help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) Tillotson clearly interfered and was properly detained and released w/o charge because it was not worth the hassle.....as usual. Interfered with what though? If she's interfering with cops questioning her client about the case they're both in the courthouse for, then in reality, the cops are the interference. They're interfering with Tillotson's representation of her client, and with her client's right to be represented by an attorney. And that's exactly what the situation objectively appeared to be from the video. At no point did anyone mention anything about a separate investigation. A bystander could not have known about the separate investigation. Tillotson could not have known. The defendant might have suspected, but he too could not have known for certain what he was going to be asked about. The only person in that hallway who knew about the separate investigation was the cop, and he didn't verbalize that to anyone else. So, no, Tillotson did not clearly interfere based on the video. Indeed, if one just watched the video, and didn't get the later explanation of the cop's subjective mindset, the person who interfered would have to be concluded to be the police interfering with her client's rights and her duty to protect her client. The only ways one can come to the conclusion that Tillotson "clearly interfered" is if we assume she's a mind reader, and therefore knew of the separate charge, or we assume that anytime a cop gives an order, regardless of legality, that order MUST be followed, and any questioning it, no matter how reasonable, is interference. the entire "de-escalation"/"keep the peace" aspect of the job goes right out the window because someone gave them a little lip. This is a huge problem in these kinds of cases, and we're seeing it more and more as police videos come out of the woodwork. Bad cops don't seem to understand the whole "don't escalate the situation, and if possible, de-escalate" thing. The beating at the pool, for example, 11 of the 12 officers were calmly controlling the situation, and everything was calm. Officer 12 rolls in and starts screaming and barking orders and tosses a girl to the ground and waving his gun. In Tillotson's case, the officer could have easily said "there's a separate crime we'd like to question him about. We will not question him about the case for which you represent him." Bam, done. If she continues to interfere, then you've got a reason to remove her, but instead, cops go straight from ambiguously trying to interfere with her client's right to an attorney to arresting the attorney. In the Bland case, she's frustrated, potentially rightfully (seriously, if a cop tailgated you and then pulled you over for moving out of the way, you'd be annoyed too), and instead of keeping things calm, the cop escalates the situation into an arrest for nothing. This keeps happening. Someone needs to drag police nationwide into a big auditorium and re-explain to them how not to escalate situations, because apparently a not insignificant percentage didn't get it the first time, and there's too much at stake to let it shake itself out. Edited July 24, 2015 by DogofWar1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) Thought it would consolidate into the previous post, I guess that timed out, so did it manually. Edited July 24, 2015 by DogofWar1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 The only ways one can come to the conclusion that Tillotson "clearly interfered" is if we assume she's a mind reader, and therefore knew of the separate charge, or we assume that anytime a cop gives an order, regardless of legality, that order MUST be followed, and any questioning it, no matter how reasonable, is interference. Well, clearly DogofWar1, Tillotson is Jean Grey from the X-Men and she should've known better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Well, clearly DogofWar1, Tillotson is Jean Grey from the X-Men and she should've known better. Perhaps, but her telepathy could also influence others. One would think she'd have just influenced everyone around her, Jedi mind tricking everyone. "These aren't the black people you're looking for," *handwave* "in fact, you're not looking for black people at all. You're going to go home and re-read police department guidelines and follow them in the future." That or she could just Phoenix Force everybody there, except her client. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 In Tillotson's case, the officer could have easily said "there's a separate crime we'd like to question him about. We will not question him about the case for which you represent him." Bam, done. If she continues to interfere, then you've got a reason to remove her, but instead, cops go straight from ambiguously trying to interfere with her client's right to an attorney to arresting the attorney.This has been bothering me. She is representing him, therefore he is her client. Do lawyers not have the right to tell their client not to talk to the police? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 This has been bothering me. She is representing him, therefore he is her client. Do lawyers not have the right to tell their client not to talk to the police? certainly... but not to stand in front of them or refuse a lawful order to move....in doing so you are obstructing justice ,no different than preventing a booking ect not even lawyers are above the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now