Save a life, get arrested.

[CBL4]

A San Marcos man was arrested after rescuing a swimmer from the swirling waters near a restaurant on the San Marcos River over the weekend.

Police say Dave Newman, 48, disobeyed repeated orders by emergency personnel to leave the water. The police report does not mention Newman's rescue of 35-year-old Abed Duamni of Houston on Sunday afternoon.
...
According to the report, Newman smirked and seemed annoyed by officers' requests. He stood in the water for about 15 seconds before swimming downstream, to avoid the turbulence from the waterfall, and across the river to the officers, the report said.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3252707

CBL

[Manny]

I saw that story. Something stinks about it. The one guy who got safety fences removed and a swimming restriction lifed happens to be the guy who interferes with a rescue operation in progress by going freelance? There's got to be a backstory here a mile high and wide that the story's not telling us about.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Police say Dave Newman, 48, disobeyed repeated orders by emergency personnel to leave the water.

A non-story. Move along.

[shanek]

From the story:

A San Marcos man was arrested after rescuing a swimmer from the swirling waters near a restaurant on the San Marcos River over the weekend.

Police say Dave Newman, 48, disobeyed repeated orders by emergency personnel to leave the water. The police report does not mention Newman's rescue of 35-year-old Abed Duamni of Houston on Sunday afternoon.

"Eh, let's just leave out that little detail. It's not important that he was SAVING A GUY'S LIFE."

"I was amazed," Newman said after getting out of Hays County Law Enforcement Center on $2,000 bail Monday morning. "I had a very uncomfortable night after saving that guy's life. He thanked me for it in front of the police, and then they took me to jail."

After being handcuffed and put in a Texas State University police squad car, Newman was taken to jail and charged with interfering with public duties.

I'd love to know what those rat-bastards were thinking. I guess he was supposed to obey orders like a good little citizen and just let the man drown?

After reaching Duamni, Newman said he swam with him under a waterfall and deposited him on the shore opposite the restaurant. He could hear law enforcement personnel telling him to come back to the shore by the restaurant.

According to the report, Newman smirked and seemed annoyed by officers' requests. He stood in the water for about 15 seconds before swimming downstream, to avoid the turbulence from the waterfall, and across the river to the officers, the report said.

"Hey! You on the far shore! You weren't supposed to be swimming here! Swim back here THIS INSTANT!"

"When he came across the river, the officer stuck out his hand like he's going to help him out of the water, and he put cuffs on him," said the Rev. John Parnell, pastor of St. Augustine Old Roman Catholic Church in Fort Worth.

According to the police report and witness accounts, the crowd that had gathered to watch the rescue was upset when they saw the police arrest Newman.

Parnell and another man blocked the police officer's path to the squad car while other members of the crowd yelled at the police, telling them Newman had saved Duamni's life and should not be arrested.

Excellent! :cool:

When Duamni got out of the water, he saw Newman in handcuffs and asked who he was. "I said, 'What's the deal,' and the police said, 'He got you out,'" Duamni said.

Oh, sure, that explains everything...

[shanek]

Originally posted by manny
I saw that story. Something stinks about it. The one guy who got safety fences removed and a swimming restriction lifed happens to be the guy who interferes with a rescue operation in progress by going freelance? There's got to be a backstory here a mile high and wide that the story's not telling us about.

Um, how about, he wanted it lifted because he goes there a lot, and since he goes there a lot he's more likely to see a person drowning there?

Or, it could all be a conspiracy.

Occam's razor, people.

[Manny]

Oh, that's a possibility, Shanek, I don't discount that. But still: Guy raises a stink to get swimming area reopened. Someone promptly drowns. A few months later, someone else is stuck and on his way to drowning. This time there's a trained rescue team on the scene. But wait! Here's the reopen the water guy! Ignoring the obviously incompetent team which surely would have failed in its rescue attempt, he leaps into the water and singlehandedly made the save! Whee-doggie, what a hero.

Nah. Something's fishy (hah!). In fairness, the stench could be coming from the TSU side -- they're probably feeling a little pissed off that they lost their campaign to close it and may be wanting to score some points. All's I'm saying is that there's a backstory here that could be a NBC 3-part miniseries. I'm not saying I know how it ends.

[shanek]

Originally posted by manny
Oh, that's a possibility, Shanek, I don't discount that. But still: Guy raises a stink to get swimming area reopened. Someone promptly drowns. A few months later, someone else is stuck and on his way to drowning. This time there's a trained rescue team on the scene. But wait! Here's the reopen the water guy! Ignoring the obviously incompetent team which surely would have failed in its rescue attempt,

Where does it say he did that?

Nah. Something's fishy (hah!). In fairness, the stench could be coming from the TSU side -- they're probably feeling a little pissed off that they lost their campaign to close it and may be wanting to score some points.

Could be, could be. Why else would they deliberately left off the fact that he saved a guy from the police report?

All's I'm saying is that there's a backstory here that could be a NBC 3-part miniseries. I'm not saying I know how it ends.

Could be.

[Manny]

Originally posted by shanek
Where does it say he did that?
Last two paragraphs of the story.In 1999, Texas State University, which owns the dam and the land around it, erected a fence to prohibit access to that part of the river. Later that year, the City Council enacted a swimming ban on that portion of the river. But Newman led a successful campaign to get the fences around the swimming hole removed and the ban relaxed.

In April, 22-year-old Jason Lee Bonnin, and a Texas State University student, drowned after he and three other restaurant workers jumped from the eatery into the river.

[TragicMonkey]

Why didn't the approved-by-authorities rescuers get into the water, too? Did they decide to rely on the freelance random guy to save the other guy, and not be at risk of drowning himself? I would have thought that they'd go ahead and at least approach both of them, and you know, use all their vast swimming powers to prevent either from drowning.

The story makes it sound like they stood there and yelled at the guy, rather than doing anything themselves. How could he be interfering with their work when they weren't doing anything?

[shanek]

Originally posted by manny
Last two paragraphs of the story.

I was talking about your accusation that he ignored " the obviously incompetent team which surely would have failed in its rescue attempt." Where does it say they were already trying to rescue him when Newman made his attempt?

[shanek]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Why didn't the approved-by-authorities rescuers get into the water, too? Did they decide to rely on the freelance random guy to save the other guy, and not be at risk of drowning himself? I would have thought that they'd go ahead and at least approach both of them, and you know, use all their vast swimming powers to prevent either from drowning.

The story makes it sound like they stood there and yelled at the guy, rather than doing anything themselves. How could he be interfering with their work when they weren't doing anything?

Actually, I don't see any reference at all to rescue workers in the story. It just mentions the police:

After reaching Duamni, Newman said he swam with him under a waterfall and deposited him on the shore opposite the restaurant. He could hear law enforcement personnel telling him to come back to the shore by the restaurant.

There's nothing in the story that says rescue workers were even there at the time.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
I'd love to know what those rat-bastards were thinking. I guess he was supposed to obey orders like a good little citizen and just let the man drown?


I suppose in Libertobia, under the rule of President Badnarik***, they would be arrested for doing their jobs, just like the zoning authorities and the IRS agents.






***President Badnarik

:dl:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
I suppose in Libertobia, under the rule of President Badnarik***, they would be arrested for doing their jobs, just like the zoning authorities and the IRS agents.






***President Badnarik

:dl: You know, I'm begining to get the idea that you are not a fan of Badnarik.

[Checkmite]

Sorry to ruin your "people hating the cops" high, but this idiot deserved what he got. There were obviously some rescue workers on scene (which is why the article says "emergency personnel" and not just "the police"), and this guy simply ignores them, complicating any proper, coordinated effort and threatening to become another victim.

But "oh, he saved a life" (taking a colossal leap and assuming the person would have drowned if he weren't there). Great, let's not say anything, so that in the future any over-confident twirp can feel free to disobey public safety officials as long as he "thinks he could do the job better".

The guy whose life he "saved" thanked him already. Why does he expect anything less than a lack of appreciation from the rescue workers whose jobs were made harder?

And of course, after this incident should've shown this moron just how very real the danger in this location is, he probably still thinks anybody should be allowed to swim there. Does he plan on being there constantly, all the time? He obviously doesn't think professional rescue workers are capable of saving anyone.

[renata]

It is too early to know details of this case, but tentatively I agree with Joshua. When I was training as a lifeguard, we were warned most about helpful bystanders. Quite often you just have to save several people instead of the one victim. That can interfere with actual rescue efforts, and endanger the emergency personnel. Sadly, even with best intentions, people who do not know proper techniques can become victims. There is a case in the news right now about it
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/05/rip.tide.ap/index.html

Officials said Carlos Reyes, 35, of Marlboro, Massachusetts, and about 10 other people went into restricted waters around 6 p.m. Monday after Reyes' son was swept away by a strong undertow in waist-deep water.

When authorities arrived, all 12 people were stuck in the current. Officials rescued 10 of them, including Reyes' son. But Reyes and Alex Tapia, 26, of Worcester, Massachusetts, were pulled unconscious from the water and pronounced dead.



Now rescuers had to rescue 12 people instead of one. Of course I am not saying that people should do nothing if someone is drowning- but if there are qualified people around, the best anyone can do is get out of their way.

[Kiless]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Sorry to ruin your "people hating the cops" high, but this idiot deserved what he got. There were obviously some rescue workers on scene (which is why the article says "emergency personnel" and not just "the police"), and this guy simply ignores them, complicating any proper, coordinated effort and threatening to become another victim.

But "oh, he saved a life" (taking a colossal leap and assuming the person would have drowned if he weren't there). Great, let's not say anything, so that in the future any over-confident twirp can feel free to disobey public safety officials as long as he "thinks he could do the job better".

The guy whose life he "saved" thanked him already. Why does he expect anything less than a lack of appreciation from the rescue workers whose jobs were made harder?

And of course, after this incident should've shown this moron just how very real the danger in this location is, he probably still thinks anybody should be allowed to swim there. Does he plan on being there constantly, all the time? He obviously doesn't think professional rescue workers are capable of saving anyone.

Agreed. I'd heard of several members of a family drowning after one kid got caught in a rip... then older brother tried to save her... then father tried to save older brother who was also caught.... by that time, no one could successfully save the father either.... :(

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by renata
It is too early to know details of this case, but tentatively I agree with Joshua. When I was training as a lifeguard, we were warned most about helpful bystanders. Quite often you just have to save several people instead of the one victim. That can interfere with actual rescue efforts, and endanger the emergency personnel.

Yes, but in this particular case, did the guy jump in after the rescue people arrived, or before?

I can't really see standing around waiting for official help to arrive before taking action.

[Kiless]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Yes, but in this particular case, did the guy jump in after the rescue people arrived, or before?

I can't really see standing around waiting for official help to arrive before taking action.

Well, there's a variety of ways you can help without putting yourself at risk. I'd say just jumping in is silly, if that is what has happened. There's not enough detail in the story. Throwing in a floatation device, coordinating to get a branch out to them or a rope, making a chain of people (or is that just getting more people in trouble like in Renata's story? 12 people, making a chain.....argh!)....I'm not a lifesaver but I recall these as being a few methods that should be preferred.

[Manny]

Originally posted by shanek
I was talking about your accusation that he ignored " the obviously incompetent team which surely would have failed in its rescue attempt." Where does it say they were already trying to rescue him when Newman made his attempt? Another of the stories which turned up on a Google News search talked about an EMS team which was 'assessing the situation' or 'trying to clear the area
or somesuch.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Sorry to ruin your "people hating the cops" high, but this idiot deserved what he got. There were obviously some rescue workers on scene (which is why the article says "emergency personnel" and not just "the police"),

I don't know about where you are, but most places the police are considered "emergency personnel" because they respond to emergencies. The only actual players mentioned, though, in the demands for him to leave etc. are law enforcement officers. There's not one word about any rescue workers.

But "oh, he saved a life" (taking a colossal leap and assuming the person would have drowned if he weren't there).

Well, considering that's what the victim says...

The guy whose life he "saved" thanked him already. Why does he expect anything less than a lack of appreciation from the rescue workers whose jobs were made harder?

What rescue workers? Point to them.

And of course, after this incident should've shown this moron just how very real the danger in this location is,

One guy almost drowning is proof that an area is dangerous enough to be sealed off???

[shanek]

Originally posted by renata
Now rescuers had to rescue 12 people instead of one. Of course I am not saying that people should do nothing if someone is drowning- but if there are qualified people around, the best anyone can do is get out of their way.

I agree; but there is no indication that the hilighted portion was true in this case.

Even if it was, does that justify putting these well-meaning people under arrest?

[shanek]

Originally posted by manny
Another of the stories which turned up on a Google News search talked about an EMS team which was 'assessing the situation' or 'trying to clear the area or somesuch.

Link?

Until I see otherwise, I'm believing the conclusions of the people who were there at the time, and were so convinced that they even stood in the way of the police arresting Newman.

[webfusion]

A man who died while saving two women from drowning was awarded compensation http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=340089&page=6

[Manny]

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=3558102&nav=0s3dbnKB

"Authorities say he kept EMS personnel from immediately assessing the scene."


And, as we predicted, more becomes known with time. It doesn't become more clear, but more is known. EMS told him to clear the water after he had jumped in, not before, but before he had found the guy (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8485038/). Newman tossed back a rescue buoy when EMS hadn't determined that the danger was over. (http://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/articles/2005/07/06/news/news1.txt) Turns out the guy wasn't drowning after all, but was in an air pocket. (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/12064809.htm) (In other news, that article has a pic of the river. They let people swim in that? Glad I'm not their liability carrier.)

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Kiless
Well, there's a variety of ways you can help without putting yourself at risk. I'd say just jumping in is silly, if that is what has happened. There's not enough detail in the story. Throwing in a floatation device, coordinating to get a branch out to them or a rope, making a chain of people (or is that just getting more people in trouble like in Renata's story? 12 people, making a chain.....argh!)....I'm not a lifesaver but I recall these as being a few methods that should be preferred. This is just what I was taught at school.

The public officers no doubt have detailed standing orders and procedures, and are well aware of the litigation likely to ensue if they divert from them. From manny's cite it seems they had a deliberately disruptive individual on the scene, and it is probably their procedure to remove said disruption as first priority.

Imagine SWAT turning up at a hostage-taking and finding a neighbourhood ex-Marine getting gung-ho. What's their first priority? Same thing here. Drown the cocky git, then rescue the other guy.

[CBL4]

Apparently, he got the drowning man out of the water and did not immediately get out himself as directed. He says it was because he was exhausted and taking a breather. He may also have refused a life buoy.

By the time most personnel arrived about 3:10 p.m., Abed Duamni of Houston had already been pulled to safety, but emergency workers didn't know if there were others in danger at the time, Bell said.

Newman, who was still in the water, reportedly threw back a buoy rescue workers tossed to him and swam to the opposite side of the river. He hesitated before answering a Texas State University police officer's demand that he return to the bank where workers were still trying to assess the situation, according to officials' accounts.[quote]

[quote]Authorities agree he helped the victim, Abdul Duamni, out of the water, but they say afterwards Newman failed to get out right-away.

"He was not obeying what they said or responding to their request. All he would have had to do was come across the river," Ralph Myers with Texas State University Police said.

What a joke. Will he get a medal along with his fine?

CBL

[shanek]

Originally posted by manny
http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=3558102&nav=0s3dbnKB

"Authorities say he kept EMS personnel from immediately assessing the scene."

Erm, not quite. A couple of paragraphs before that:

"Authorities agree he helped the victim, Abdul Duamni, out of the water, but they say afterwards Newman failed to get out right-away."

And towards the end:

"Authorities say they draw a distinct line between two scenarios. On the one hand, they're grateful he helped get this man to safety. After the rescue, authorities say he made it hard for them to control the situation."

So all of that happened after he saved the guy.

And, as we predicted, more becomes known with time. It doesn't become more clear, but more is known. EMS told him to clear the water after he had jumped in, not before, but before he had found the guy (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8485038/).

Apparently, he also had help rescuing the guy:

"I touched something, and then, when I came back up, the police were yelling for everyone out of the water, out of the water, and I knew that I had brushed something up in there. And I thought one more attempt was worth risking going against their wishes, the police.

"And when I went down again, a foot appeared amidst the bubbles and so forth. And I thought it was the foot of a dead man. And I grabbed it and pulled and there was no response. I grabbed his shorts, his swimsuit, and pulled myself back out toward the opening of that cavity on the rope.

"As I saw the light, I brought him across my body and shoved him up toward the surface. And there was another gentlemen down there, a 19-year-old kid, who was assisting me with this rescue attempt. And he helped the victim there get to an area where the current wasn't so strong and to shallow water, where we could catch our -- he could catch his breath and so forth. I followed."

Begging the question: why was he arrested and not the others? Because he was the one who decided to defy the police orders?

Also notice that apparently the police didn't know there was anyone else in the water. They had no idea he was down there.

Newman tossed back a rescue buoy when EMS hadn't determined that the danger was over. (http://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/articles/2005/07/06/news/news1.txt)

Yeah, well:

"By the time most personnel arrived about 3:10 p.m., Abed Duamni of Houston had already been pulled to safety..."

That answers that. The rescue personnel were NOT there at the time he went to save Duamni.

Turns out the guy wasn't drowning after all, but was in an air pocket. (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/12064809.htm)

Oh, now that's just a dishonest way of putting it. The guy lucked out in finding a place with a little bit of air he could get to; it's not like he was in no danger.

(In other news, that article has a pic of the river. They let people swim in that? Glad I'm not their liability carrier.)

I don't see any problems just with what's in that picture. There are far worse around these parts.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CBL4
What a joke.

It's the police that are the joke here. "All he would have had to do was come across the river." Strange thing to demand of someone you're wanting to get OUT of the river! He wasl aready at the far bank; they told him to swim back across over to them!

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by shanek
One guy almost drowning is proof that an area is dangerous enough to be sealed off???

No, one person actually really-and-truly drowning in April, coupled with the fact that emergency workers have had to respond to that specific location 6 times since then (including once the day before this incident), per the video link at KXAN.

[CBL4]

It's the police that are the joke here.That what I meant. I guess I was not clear.

CBL

[CBL4]

Here is my guess as to what happened.

Duamni jumps in and gets in trouble. Someone calls the police. Newman and other jump in and eventually save the guy. About the same time the rescue is over the police show up and it is a confusing scene. They order everyone out and toss Newman a buoy. Newman is familar with the water and refuses the buoy. He catches his breath and swims to back to shore. The police are pissed because he did not follow his orders and because they do not like being regularly called to the area. They assume he is a trouble maker and not a hero. They arrest him without without talking to him or asking anyone why he was in the water.

Once the handcuffs are on, the police find it difficult to admit a mistake. Newman probably acts like a smart ass and the police are mad because he does not "respect their authoritay." Newman goes to jail.

CBL

[Manny]

Originally posted by shanek
Oh, now that's just a dishonest way of putting it. It's not at all, in the context of my claims in this thread. Remember, I've chosen no sides here. I just said that "There's got to be a backstory here a mile high and wide that the story's not telling us about."

Since the initial story, we've got the drowning guy finding a temporary refuge, an assistant on the rescue who was not arrested, a thrown back buoy, a conflict whether EMS was even there at the time of the actual rescue (Newman says yes), and six additional near-drownings. I'd say that my admittedly not-extraordinary hypothesis is working out nicely.

After CBL4, I'll now take a WAG at what happened.

Newman is obssessed with this stretch of the river and spends all his free time there. He has been at war with the University for years over it -- they wanted to close it to swimmers, he successfully caused them to open it. He hates them, they hate him. The facts are demonstrating that the University was right to want to close it. Another confrontation is now brewing. An additional fact -- Mr. Duamni -- is about to manifest itself. Newman goes in to get the guy. EMS shows up. Newman gets the guy. Because the guy's out before EMS hits the water, Newman's thinking this one doesn't "count" toward near-drownings and he's cheezed off at EMS for trying to get involved. He shows them contempt. Basically, he's begging to get arrested, and the police (who, remember, hate him back) are begging for a chance to arrest him. With the two parties in agreement, an arrest is made.

Mr. Newman poked the bear. Maybe the bear shouldn't have reacted. But it's a bear.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CBL4
Here is my guess as to what happened.

Duamni jumps in and gets in trouble. Someone calls the police. Newman and other jump in and eventually save the guy. About the same time the rescue is over the police show up and it is a confusing scene. They order everyone out and toss Newman a buoy. Newman is familar with the water and refuses the buoy. He catches his breath and swims to back to shore. The police are pissed because he did not follow his orders and because they do not like being regularly called to the area. They assume he is a trouble maker and not a hero. They arrest him without without talking to him or asking anyone why he was in the water.

Once the handcuffs are on, the police find it difficult to admit a mistake. Newman probably acts like a smart ass and the police are mad because he does not "respect their authoritay." Newman goes to jail.

That's probably very close.

[shanek]

Originally posted by manny
It's not at all, in the context of my claims in this thread. Remember, I've chosen no sides here. I just said that "There's got to be a backstory here a mile high and wide that the story's not telling us about."

Since the initial story, we've got the drowning guy finding a temporary refuge, an assistant on the rescue who was not arrested, a thrown back buoy, a conflict whether EMS was even there at the time of the actual rescue (Newman says yes), and six additional near-drownings. I'd say that my admittedly not-extraordinary hypothesis is working out nicely.

After CBL4, I'll now take a WAG at what happened.

Newman is obssessed with this stretch of the river and spends all his free time there. He has been at war with the University for years over it -- they wanted to close it to swimmers, he successfully caused them to open it. He hates them, they hate him. The facts are demonstrating that the University was right to want to close it. Another confrontation is now brewing. An additional fact -- Mr. Duamni -- is about to manifest itself. Newman goes in to get the guy. EMS shows up. Newman gets the guy. Because the guy's out before EMS hits the water, Newman's thinking this one doesn't "count" toward near-drownings and he's cheezed off at EMS for trying to get involved. He shows them contempt. Basically, he's begging to get arrested, and the police (who, remember, hate him back) are begging for a chance to arrest him. With the two parties in agreement, an arrest is made.

Mr. Newman poked the bear. Maybe the bear shouldn't have reacted. But it's a bear.

And that's just conspiracy-mongering.

CBL4 posited a very reasonable scenario using all of the facts in evidence. You just wildly started making stuff up.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
And that's just conspiracy-mongering.

CBL4 posited a very reasonable scenario using all of the facts in evidence. You just wildly started making stuff up.

:id:

[davefoc]

CBL4's scenario seems likely. Assuming it is accurate should Newman be able to bring a case against the police for an unjustified arrest?

It seems that exigent circumstances justified ignoring the police when he successfully rescued Duamni . So, ignoring the police under those circumstances looks like no crime.

After the guy was rescued did the police have the right to order anybody to do anything? Maybe if they still believed that there were individuals at risk. But not if they were just pissed at the guy because he had ignored them the first time.

Unrelated digression:
This reminds me of a situation years ago. I was teaching a woman how to drive a car with a manual transmission. The woman was moderately drunk and we got pulled over by the cops. The cops ordered me to stay in the car. This pissed me off, since I didn't think I had committed any crime and as such I didn't think the cops had any right to order me to do anything. The next day, I realized I had been a complete idiot and of course in that situation it was reasonable for the cops to ask me to stay in the car. Fortunately, I more or less stayed calm and the cop ended up taking pity on us and let us go (with the understanding that I would drive). If this happened today, I think the outcome would be far less happy. The woman would have been arrested, she probably would have paid a $5000 fine and possibly another $5000 to a lawyer and would probably have ended up with a restricted (drive to work and back only) drivers license for a year.

[CBL4]

Thanks for the agreement.

I do think Manny made a good point about Newman's reputation. I said that the police "assume he is a trouble maker." It is likely that they knew he was a trouble maker (from their POV) because of his past actions.

I tend to doubt that he was "begging for arrest" immediately after saving a life. At that point, the hero's high (I mean this is a good way) he must of been experiencing would probably be ruling his actions not his (possible) antipathy to police.

CBL

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by davefoc
CBL4's scenario seems likely. Assuming it is accurate should Newman be able to bring a case against the police for an unjustified arrest?

Any civil case would be dependent on whether or not he's found guilty in the criminal case. I'm assuming he hasn't been tried yet, as the last update merely says he's been bonded.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Any civil case would be dependent on whether or not he's found guilty in the criminal case.

Actually, that's not true. There's a different system of evidence and different standard of proof in civil cases. The outcome of the criminal case has nothing to do with it.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Any civil case would be dependent on whether or not he's found guilty in the criminal case.

I think if OJ Simpson proved anything, it's that the above is <u>not</u> necessarily the case.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Actually, that's not true. There's a different system of evidence and different standard of proof in civil cases. The outcome of the criminal case has nothing to do with it.

Are you sure about that? You were quite sure that all banks were forced to belong to the Federal Reserve, and that Spain never had a problem with terrorists until they joined the US coalition. And in both cases you were shown to be wrong.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by shanek
Actually, that's not true. There's a different system of evidence and different standard of proof in civil cases. The outcome of the criminal case has nothing to do with it.

I'd like to see a judge find the police at fault of "wrongful arrest" in the event of a guilty verdict. As a guilty verdict means that a jury has decided that he did, in fact, break a law; you can't logically be "wrongfully arrested" if you were actually committing the offense for which you were arrested.

On the other hand, I doubt a jury will find this person guilty.

[crimresearch]

The standard of proof in a civil case (the preponderance of the evidence), would be very heavily influenced by the conviction of the person on the very charges he would be claiming he was wrongly arrested for.

Particularly in suing someone who has qualified immunity, the amount of evidence needed to outweigh the side of the police would be substantial.

And it would have to be evidence admissible in a court of law... not speculation, conjecture, supposition, arm chair quarterbacking, or wild eyed conspiracy/anti-government flights of fantasy with made up definitions of legal terms.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I'd like to see a judge find the police at fault of "wrongful arrest" in the event of a guilty verdict.

That's a question for the jury. And the outcome of the criminal trial isn't supposed to come into evidence.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by shanek
And the outcome of the criminal trial isn't supposed to come into evidence.

Because, as we all know, matters of public record are excluded from being used by the respondent in their defense....

:dl:

[shanek]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Because, as we all know, matters of public record are excluded from being used by the respondent in their defense....

There have been countless cases where someone sued of something in civil court, such as wrongful death, was unable to use their acquittal in criminal court in their defense.

They can be admitted as evidence, but it has to pass the question of whether or not its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effects. Often, that isn't the case.

[Manny]

Originally posted by shanek
There have been countless cases where someone sued of something in civil court, such as wrongful death, was unable to use their acquittal in criminal court in their defense.

They can be admitted as evidence, but it has to pass the question of whether or not its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effects. Often, that isn't the case. Depends on the jurisdiction and on the facts of the case. In some states, a conviction (or more specifically, a conviction which is not overturned on appeal) is an absolute affirmative defence against malicious prosecution but not against false arrest. In other jurisdictions, such an affirmed conviction is an absolute affirmative defence against both torts but not against other torts which may arise from the arrest such as brutality charges.

Controlling in Texas appears to be Wells v. Bonner, which bars recovery under a claim of false arrest if the defendant is convicted of the charges which occasioned the arrest.

However, that's not relevant in this instance, as the charges have been dropped (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA070905.5B.charges_dropped.4d34c2d8.html).

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
There have been countless cases where someone sued of something in civil court, such as wrongful death, was unable to use their acquittal in criminal court in their defense.

They can be admitted as evidence, but it has to pass the question of whether or not its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effects. Often, that isn't the case.

You seem to be awfully sure of that. Care to address Spain's terrorsist problem? Or is that to be ignored, because you don't want to be embaressed?