Amy Goodman violently manhandled during unlawful arrest

[Justforfun000]

The courts are the only place to handle illegal arrests. Illegal use of force, or deadly force is debatable, but never just for an arrest.

So you could never justify escaping from an officer even if you can prove you were going to be unlawlfully arrested?

[Death from the Sea]

So you could never justify escaping from an officer even if you can prove you were going to be unlawlfully arrested?

the real problem I see with your scenario, is that you assaulted the officer in your escape. Plus resisting and then evading detention or arrest are both offenses as well. So you ended up giving the officer pc for an arrest.

[Knife]

The courts are the only place to handle illegal arrests. Illegal use of force, or deadly force is debatable, but never just for an arrest.

So you could never justify escaping from an officer even if you can prove you were going to be unlawlfully arrested?

To 'prove' you were unlawfully arrested means you'd have to go to court in the first place.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The courts are the only place to handle illegal arrests. Illegal use of force, or deadly force is debatable, but never just for an arrest.

So you could never justify escaping from an officer even if you can prove you were going to be unlawlfully arrested?

Right, and by physically resisting you jeopardize any potential for compensation. You're much more likely to win some sort of compensation from the city, department, etc if you comply with the arrest.

Take this example from UHP.

UHP Link This guy choose to disobey even though he felt he was in the right. Now that UHP trooper needs some lessons in tact, but even if the UHP trooper was wrong the use of force here would have been upheld.

[Singular Intellect]

The way the OP worded the incident made me think the woman had been thrown to the ground or slammed against a vehicle with some amount of significant force. Or something to that effect.

But instead what I saw was a woman who was trying to repeatedly push her way through a police barricade, the first officer in question tried to (from what I saw) relatively gentle redirect her away, all the while barking orders to comply and move away. After she continued resisting, he called over other officers to arrest her.

As far as I'm concerned, physically resisting police is never a good idea, unless it's some really unique situation where you're being assaulted in a manner that has nothing to do with police authority.

It's a police officer's job to maintain law and order, not pamper fucking idiots who refuse to listen to instructions and think they have any right to try physically bypassing police officers.

[Elfdart]

One protester came up with his own way of dealing with thuggish policemen:

Crooks and Liars

If policemen are going to be such hoodlums and the authorities are not going to do anything about them, then it's only a matter of time before more people take the law into their own hands, just like the nutter who jumped the cop in the video.

By the way, that asshole in a badge probably won't be charged, even though he deliberately attacked bystanders and reporters.

[Pablo Sanchez]

By the way, that asshole in a badge probably won't be charged, even though he deliberately attacked bystanders and reporters.

I actually think he might be in line for at least a severe reprimand and a suspension. That simply cannot be allowable procedure; during an arrest he was attacked by a suspect who immediately fled, and he responded by macing a dozen or more innocent onlookers and making no effort whatever to apprehend either the suspect he had been arresting or the one who attacked him. If he hadn't been caught on tape I could believe him getting away with it, but with the video evidence I don't see it being avoidable.

The situation up there is embarrassing enough and getting enough coverage that there might be a few "bad apple" fall guys in the future.

[Death from the Sea]

One protester came up with his own way of dealing with thuggish policemen:

Crooks and Liars

If policemen are going to be such hoodlums and the authorities are not going to do anything about them, then it's only a matter of time before more people take the law into their own hands, just like the nutter who jumped the cop in the video.

By the way, that asshole in a badge probably won't be charged, even though he deliberately attacked bystanders and reporters.

depending on what the guy the officer was dragging off had been doing determines alot here. But I think that it is pretty easy for the officer to justify his actions there, once he was hit by that coward that ran away. The officer was greatly outnumbered by a crowd that was hostile towards him, once attacked and the officer was down, the crowd began to close in even more on the officer. Had he not sprayed the crowd may have joined in on the attack on the officer. The officer safety issue even played such a large role that the officer ended up letting the guy he was pulling (dragging) down the street go free so he could retreat from the crowd.

[Stuart Mackey]

One protester came up with his own way of dealing with thuggish policemen:

Crooks and Liars

If policemen are going to be such hoodlums and the authorities are not going to do anything about them, then it's only a matter of time before more people take the law into their own hands, just like the nutter who jumped the cop in the video.

By the way, that asshole in a badge probably won't be charged, even though he deliberately attacked bystanders and reporters.

depending on what the guy the officer was dragging off had been doing determines alot here. But I think that it is pretty easy for the officer to justify his actions there, once he was hit by that coward that ran away. The officer was greatly outnumbered by a crowd that was hostile towards him, once attacked and the officer was down, the crowd began to close in even more on the officer. Had he not sprayed the crowd may have joined in on the attack on the officer. The officer safety issue even played such a large role that the officer ended up letting the guy he was pulling (dragging) down the street go free so he could retreat from the crowd.

Coward? what was he going to do? duke it out mano'a'mano?:lol: the only rule is winning, this cop lost, that's all there is to it.

[Justforfun000]

Right, and by physically resisting you jeopardize any potential for compensation. You're much more likely to win some sort of compensation from the city, department, etc if you comply with the arrest.

Yeah i understand. It REALLY goes against my grain to have to obey someone that would be placing you under arrest unlawfully (assuming this fictional scenario of course), but I do understand the need to have the authority to compel arrest or every Tom, Dick and Harry could justify fighting off the cop because they were "right". I didn't think it through all the way to think of the broader implications.

UHP Link This guy choose to disobey even though he felt he was in the right. Now that UHP trooper needs some lessons in tact, but even if the UHP trooper was wrong the use of force here would have been upheld.

Oh Jesus. Now this I just cannot justify at all. I personally despise the use of tasers because I think too many officers get off on being able to cause excrutiating pain to someone just because they don't immediately ask "how high" when they are told to jump and this is what I see in this video here. The guy was not immediately or completely obeying instructions, true, but I'm sorry, when the person is NOT displaying any violent intentions, OR trying to flee from the officer, I cannot justify them using the taser. I think it's an egregious abuse of power and I think each and every officer should be reprimanded and punished for it. They should NOT be upheld as appropriate uses.
The officer should be beholden to patiently explain exactly WHY the guy has to follow the instructions from the cop and what he can do to challenge it, and what he CANNOT refuse to do. Coaxing the guy into being calm and explaining themselves TACTFULLY as you hinted to is the appropriate way to go. I will never be convinced that tasering in these instances is justifiable or appropriate. It's abuse of power and quite frankly I think it's bordering on deadly assault because there are a little too many people who have died from being tasered. They aren't THAT safe and too many times I see them being used as a toy.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Oh Jesus. Now this I just cannot justify at all. I personally despise the use of tasers because I think too many officers get off on being able to cause excrutiating pain to someone just because they don't immediately ask "how high" when they are told to jump and this is what I see in this video here.

Immediately? This guy was told several times with a weapon being pointed at him.

The guy was not immediately or completely obeying instructions, true, but I'm sorry, when the person is NOT displaying any violent intentions, OR trying to flee from the officer, I cannot justify them using the taser.

He was putting his hands in his pockets which to a police officer is a huge red flag. IIRC the force used by this UHP trooper was ruled justified by a panel of civilians, however, they made him take classes in tact.

I think it's an egregious abuse of power and I think each and every officer should be reprimanded and punished for it. They should NOT be upheld as appropriate uses.
The officer should be beholden to patiently explain exactly WHY the guy has to follow the instructions from the cop and what he can do to challenge it, and what he CANNOT refuse to do. Coaxing the guy into being calm and explaining themselves TACTFULLY as you hinted to is the appropriate way to go. I will never be convinced that tasering in these instances is justifiable or appropriate. It's abuse of power and quite frankly I think it's bordering on deadly assault because there are a little too many people who have died from being tasered. They aren't THAT safe and too many times I see them being used as a toy.

Tasers have been deployed thousands of times with only a few hundred deaths world wide. However, we can argue about the taser, this video, and the use of a force in another thread.

Anyway, the point of that video was to show that resisting and disobeying commands from a police officer will get you arrested, and if you continue to resist it might get you hurt. Don't resist regardless of the validity of those charges...

[Justforfun000]

Started a thread in SLAM to answer you KS so we didn't continue to derail this thread.

[Darth Wong]

The courts are the only place to handle illegal arrests. Illegal use of force, or deadly force is debatable, but never just for an arrest.

So you could never justify escaping from an officer even if you can prove you were going to be unlawlfully arrested?

Evading arrest is, itself, a crime. As well it should be; while it may irritate you on a personal level to be detained on charges for which you are ultimately found not guilty, it is far more absurd to say that citizens have the right to decide for themselves whether police should be arresting them, and then be able to flee (with all of the attendant risks to the public that come from police pursuit) with no legal consequence.

It's like saying that you should have the right to break out of jail if you don't believe you deserve to be there.

In this particular case, everything about the article screams that it was written by an ideologue with an agenda. Since when can anyone seriously believe that citizens have the right to unilaterally decide that an arrest has been unjust and then attempt to forcibly release the prisoners? What's next? Amy Goodman helped organize a prison break but it's OK because she's a journalist? Journalism awards do not confer automatic legal immunity.

[Gil Hamilton]

I think the issue is that the law is being used a way to suppress the journalists, if the article is true.

-Say, for example, you are reporting on an event. Corrupt Police Officer #2390 decides to arrest you on a BS charge in order to get you out of there (such as the aformentioned "suspicion to riot" thing).

-You don't resist arrest, go through the courts, a judge agrees that it was a BS charge and you are let go; no harm, no foul.

-By this time, the event you are reporting on is over, packed up, and gone. Thus, even though you did nothing wrong, the goal of preventing you from covering the event is achieved. After all, if you resist and try to stay, you are resisting an officer. That you have to go through the correct channels makes it easy for the police to cart off anyone you don't want to be at a location that has the right to be there. After all, even if the person is vindicated on a clearly bad charge, they are still removed.


That right there is the real complaint, particularly since the officer in question is almost certainly not going to actually face any consequences as long as states that the trumped up charge is what he believed at the time. If all is to be believed, that's an abuse of the system and needs corrected.

[Timotheus]

I do not know all of the specifics but the article points something important out.

She was arrested for trying to stop the illegal detainment. Now considering the tone of the article I am sure "illegal detainment" meant arrest.

So in effect this dumb bitch tried to physically interpose herself in the arrest of her two companions.

I don't care what the situation is. You try to step in and physically stop cops from arresting someone and you are going to get manhandled. It does not matter if she or anyone else things they should not have been arrested or "illegally detained" as this bias piece says. You do not step in and attempt to physically involve yourself with cops.

Technically now she can be arrested and charged with a hell of a lot more than her two companions will ever get charged with assuming they even get charged.

[Darth Wong]

I think the issue is that the law is being used a way to suppress the journalists, if the article is true.

-Say, for example, you are reporting on an event. Corrupt Police Officer #2390 decides to arrest you on a BS charge in order to get you out of there (such as the aformentioned "suspicion to riot" thing).

-You don't resist arrest, go through the courts, a judge agrees that it was a BS charge and you are let go; no harm, no foul.

-By this time, the event you are reporting on is over, packed up, and gone. Thus, even though you did nothing wrong, the goal of preventing you from covering the event is achieved. After all, if you resist and try to stay, you are resisting an officer. That you have to go through the correct channels makes it easy for the police to cart off anyone you don't want to be at a location that has the right to be there. After all, even if the person is vindicated on a clearly bad charge, they are still removed.


That right there is the real complaint, particularly since the officer in question is almost certainly not going to actually face any consequences as long as states that the trumped up charge is what he believed at the time. If all is to be believed, that's an abuse of the system and needs corrected.

That's what lawsuits are for.

[salm]

The courts are the only place to handle illegal arrests. Illegal use of force, or deadly force is debatable, but never just for an arrest.

So you could never justify escaping from an officer even if you can prove you were going to be unlawlfully arrested?

Evading arrest is, itself, a crime. As well it should be; while it may irritate you on a personal level to be detained on charges for which you are ultimately found not guilty, it is far more absurd to say that citizens have the right to decide for themselves whether police should be arresting them, and then be able to flee (with all of the attendant risks to the public that come from police pursuit) with no legal consequence.

It's like saying that you should have the right to break out of jail if you don't believe you deserve to be there.

In Germany it is exactly like this. If you resist arrest by a cop who tries to unlawfully arrest you, you can not be charged.
If the arrest is lawful and you can prove that at the time of resistance you thought that it was unlawful and it is determined by the court that it is within reasonable circumstance that you thought that the arrest was unlawful you can not be charged either.

Same with escaping from prison. It is not a crime and you can not be charged for it. Even if you were imprisoned for a real crime.

[Timotheus]

I think the issue is that the law is being used a way to suppress the journalists, if the article is true.

-Say, for example, you are reporting on an event. Corrupt Police Officer #2390 decides to arrest you on a BS charge in order to get you out of there (such as the aformentioned "suspicion to riot" thing).

-You don't resist arrest, go through the courts, a judge agrees that it was a BS charge and you are let go; no harm, no foul.

-By this time, the event you are reporting on is over, packed up, and gone. Thus, even though you did nothing wrong, the goal of preventing you from covering the event is achieved. After all, if you resist and try to stay, you are resisting an officer. That you have to go through the correct channels makes it easy for the police to cart off anyone you don't want to be at a location that has the right to be there. After all, even if the person is vindicated on a clearly bad charge, they are still removed.


That right there is the real complaint, particularly since the officer in question is almost certainly not going to actually face any consequences as long as states that the trumped up charge is what he believed at the time. If all is to be believed, that's an abuse of the system and needs corrected.

That's what lawsuits are for.

The writer of this article and the people related to this incident are not interested in a lawsuit. They were trying to create a scene to twist to their advantage.

She was not physically assaulted beyond what happens when you physically assert yourself on a police officer. If she had been a man we would have probably seen the cops use a hell of a lot more force on her when she tried to mix it up with them.

This article is a slash job and no one associated with it should carry the credentials of a journalist. Probably just an extremist movement (both sides Dem and Rep have tons to of them out there associated with them but not condoned or even liked by them) trying to hide as journalists.

[White Haven]

The problem is that the article is addressing two issues at once. The initial two detentions, which were clearly out of line, and Goodman's White Knight delusions, which were foolish. Yes, one caused the other, but you can't tar all three with 'But Amy Goodman's an idiot for trying to bust the other two out.'

To KS, a question that's come to mind over the course of this and several other threads. At what point should the populace cease trusting the police, and how do you measure that? I'm not at all saying that point has been reached, at least not nationally (individual 'bad apple' districts are another story, but not what I'm focusing on), but I'm curious as to where you think that point would be, and what actions would be reasonable after reaching that point.

[Timotheus]

The problem is that the article is addressing two issues at once. The initial two detentions, which were clearly out of line, and Goodman's White Knight delusions, which were foolish. Yes, one caused the other, but you can't tar all three with 'But Amy Goodman's an idiot for trying to bust the other two out.'

To KS, a question that's come to mind over the course of this and several other threads. At what point should the populace cease trusting the police, and how do you measure that? I'm not at all saying that point has been reached, at least not nationally (individual 'bad apple' districts are another story, but not what I'm focusing on), but I'm curious as to where you think that point would be, and what actions would be reasonable after reaching that point.

Quick question.

Do we have anything other than this biased article telling us what the two individuals "illegally detained" were doing? Based on this article I cannot in good faith have any stance. They may have been arrested on BS or they may have been doing everything possible to get arrested just to cause a stink.

[Justforfun000]

In Germany it is exactly like this. If you resist arrest by a cop who tries to unlawfully arrest you, you can not be charged.
If the arrest is lawful and you can prove that at the time of resistance you thought that it was unlawful and it is determined by the court that it is within reasonable circumstance that you thought that the arrest was unlawful you can not be charged either.

Same with escaping from prison. It is not a crime and you can not be charged for it. Even if you were imprisoned for a real crime.

While this appeal strongly to the personal nature of my freedom and right to avoid being detained or punished unfairly I agree with Mike. It's a legal nightmare waiting to happen. It's taking the law into your own hands and it's a horribly bad precedent. I start off a lot of "what if" arguments from an emotional standpoint but when I end up discussing them through to the logical conclusion I see that it's just not realistic to put society and it's safety on the same level as your personal inconvenience.

Although I do secretly love that law in Germany..

[Timotheus]

Also like to point out that is not really an article either. It is a press release by this organization poorly disguised as an article.

News articles dont ask you to go out and call your reps or harass public officials.

[Mr Bean]

Another issue that's come out of this is the St Paul police are going after the watchdog groups first. IE the various groups that do nothing but follow around Protest groups with Camera's to watch how the police respond. They are all over New York City and have helped catch dozens of cops deliberately falsifying reports and faking evidence to arrest people.

So what did the St Paul Police do? On Friday along with the raids that we heard about they raised some of these same groups which exist only to monitor them and help them for the full 24 hours, but also confiscated their equipment which they can hold much longer as evidence, until the GoP are out of town.

[Timotheus]

Another issue that's come out of this is the St Paul police are going after the watchdog groups first. IE the various groups that do nothing but follow around Protest groups with Camera's to watch how the police respond. They are all over New York City and have helped catch dozens of cops deliberately falsifying reports and faking evidence to arrest people.

So what did the St Paul Police do? On Friday along with the raids that we heard about they raised some of these same groups which exist only to monitor them and help them for the full 24 hours, but also confiscated their equipment which they can hold much longer as evidence, until the GoP are out of town.

Do you think the protestors are more or less likely to cause grief when they know cameras are following them around?

I don't see this as anything political at all. Its two things.

1. Police protecting their own.

2. Police figuring these asshat protestors are more likely to cause trouble and skirt the edge to irritate a cop into doing something just because there are cameras there to record it all.

Right or wrong they are just being pragmatic not political.

[salm]

Do the cops actually bring their own cameras?
Last mayday i was in Berlin to watch the anual riots and the cops themselves had huge amounts of cameras. The masses throw rocks and bottles at them and as soon as the cops have an individual clearly on camera they move in and arrest him.