Capitol Police Goons break man's leg for exercising Freedom of Speech

[shemp]

Capitol Police broke the leg of a man who was stopped for wearing a button that says "I LOVE THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ." (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/11/rev-lennox-yearwood-arrested-at-petraeus-hearing/)

You can decide for yourself whether he really assaulted an officer or not. I think not. I think the only assault that took place was on the Constitution and your right to freedom of speech.

qiradcejA6o

[Darth Rotor]

Capitol Police broke the leg of a man who was stopped for wearing a button that says "I LOVE THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ." (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/11/rev-lennox-yearwood-arrested-at-petraeus-hearing/)

You can decide for yourself whether he really assaulted an officer or not. I think not. I think the only assault that took place was on the Constitution and your right to freedom of speech.

qiradcejA6o
Why do you hate cops?

DR

[Modified]

Capitol Police broke the leg of a man who was stopped for wearing a button that says "I LOVE THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ." (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/11/rev-lennox-yearwood-arrested-at-petraeus-hearing/)

You can decide for yourself whether he really assaulted an officer or not. I think not. I think the only assault that took place was on the Constitution and your right to freedom of speech.

qiradcejA6o

Clearly there was no assault. He may have been lunging for the door, but it appears he was just trying to slip away from the hands that were beginning to restrain him. In most jurisdictions, a felony "assaulting a police officer" charge is standard procedure whenever someone is beaten by police, rightly or wrongly. Then, if the officer is uninjured and the perp/victim is injured, the felony assault will be reduced to misdemeanor assault to avoid a change of venue.

[RandFan]

I'm confused.
According to (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-10-Protests_N.htm?csp=34) Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, Rev. Yearwood was tackled and detained by SIX cops because he allegedly refused to go to the end of the line of people waiting to enter the hearing room. He was charged with disorderly conduct and assault on a police officer.

I've listened to this a number of time and no one that I can tell says anything about the button. He says he was waiting in like however the footage has been edited and we can't verify that.

Regardless, I see a guy who doesn't comply with officers. I can't fault them for the tackle. The officers, from my limited knowledge and as far as I could tell, followed policy when he did not comply.

I hate to harp on this so much but folks, you have to comply with the police when they tell you to do something or suffer the consequences. His actions led to his being hurt.

He might have a legitimate gripe for being asked to go to the back of the line. We don't know that.

Being a litigious society I have no doubt the guy will win a tidy sum regardless.

Sorry, I just don't think there is anything to see here. JMO.

Please fill me in if there is info that I'm missing.

[RandFan]

Clearly there was no assault. I'm not sure how you can be so certain. What is happening at the bottom of that scrum? I can't see it.

[Molinaro]

He looks guilty of assault to me. The officer tried to lead him away. He shrugged off the officer's light hold on his arm. He then turned and brought both his hands up and tried to shove his way through another officer, standing between him and the doorway.

[Rob Lister]

Guilty. Break his other leg too.

[Beerina]

I'm confused.


I've listened to this a number of time and no one that I can tell says anything about the button. He says he was waiting in lin?e however the footage has been edited and we can't verify that.

What we see here shows him standing there right next to the admitting officers, and several people in the actual line pass him and go in.

Now why he's standing to the side, I don't know. Was he pulled aside earlier? Did he just walk up there, bypassing the line? Did he think the line was empty so he could just go in next?

[Oliver]

Capitol Police broke the leg of a man who was stopped for wearing a button that says "I LOVE THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ." (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/11/rev-lennox-yearwood-arrested-at-petraeus-hearing/)

You can decide for yourself whether he really assaulted an officer or not. I think not. I think the only assault that took place was on the Constitution and your right to freedom of speech.

qiradcejA6o


Why are officers so radical in the US? ... Maze, Tasers,
pulling Guns, harassing civilians, shooting ... Are there
reasons for the amount of violence I see all over Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22police+brutality%22+Tasere d&search=Search

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Capitol Police broke the leg of a man who was stopped for wearing a button that says "I LOVE THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ." (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/11/rev-lennox-yearwood-arrested-at-petraeus-hearing/)

You can decide for yourself whether he really assaulted an officer or not. I think not. I think the only assault that took place was on the Constitution and your right to freedom of speech.

qiradcejA6o

Why do you hate America?

This guy went looking for trouble and then complained when he found it. I love how all his sycophants in the background are yelling "He's a reverend, leave him alone". As if a reverend can't commit a crime. I liked how he kept saying "I'm not resisting", while he was resisting.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Policenaut]

Because criminals (and especially gangs) are often violent. Police have a hard job in some areas of the US and they have to have the tools to protect themselves and law abiding citizens. Even on routine highway traffic stops people have tried to run over police, shoot them, physically assault them, stab them, and so forth. And this is just for traffic stops.

Of course some officers do no follow the law and are indeed criminals themselves but it's a small minority.

[Beerina]

Also, doing this right inside Congress itself probably lends itself to an overwhelming response. This isn't some street somewhere; there are cops aplenty all over the place.

[Random]

Various witnesses state that he was waiting in line to enter the hearings, and when people began to file in, he was told to go to the back of the line and given no reason. This is odd any way you want to look at it.

If they simply denied him access, there would be some complaining, but the cops would be on solid ground. Instead, they tell him to go to the back of the line both denying him access because the hearing room would be full before he got to the front of the line again, and implying that he was still authorized to go in.

It’s not clear at all from the tape if he was resisting or not when they told him to stop resisting. It’s entirely possible that cops just used that phrase to justify their handling of him. “Stop resisting arrest!” WHACK!

[The Painter]

Looks like it's worth a couple of Million to me.

[WildCat]

It really makes no difference whether he was properly in line or not, once the police order him to the end of the line it is his duty to comply. He clearly didn't, tried to force his way through the door and then resisted despite his claims otherwise.

And I see no evidence of a broken leg, just him claiming it was. A any rate, it's clear that whatever injury he had to his leg wasn't intentional.

[Random]

It really makes no difference whether he was properly in line or not, once the police order him to the end of the line it is his duty to comply. He clearly didn't, tried to force his way through the door and then resisted despite his claims otherwise.

And I see no evidence of a broken leg, just him claiming it was. A any rate, it's clear that whatever injury he had to his leg wasn't intentional.

What resistance? When the cop is saying, "stop resisting" and he is saying, "I'm not resisting", the video doesn't show anything but a pile of cops.

And yes, he does have a broken leg. It is not clear in the video, but he was taken to the hospital after the cameras stopped rolling. Not even the wingnut sites are denying his leg is broken.

[WildCat]

What resistance? When the cop is saying, "stop resisting" and he is saying, "I'm not resisting", the video doesn't show anything but a pile of cops.
He is clearly resisting! You don't see him going to the back of the line, do you? He clearly lunges for the door, which precipitates the take-down that apparently broke his leg.

[ponderingturtle]

It really makes no difference whether he was properly in line or not, once the police order him to the end of the line it is his duty to comply.

So any order from a police officer that is not followed should get a beating then?

He should have known that like the republican convention all protests need to be done from with in the proper cages.

[WildCat]

So any order from a police officer that is not followed should get a beating then?
There is no beating at all in that video. Perhaps you were watching something else?

He should have known that like the republican convention all protests need to be done from with in the proper cages.
:confused:

[Random]

He is clearly resisting! You don't see him going to the back of the line, do you? He clearly lunges for the door, which precipitates the take-down that apparently broke his leg.

I thought you were refering to the part about 2:15 in, when the cops are telling him to stop resisting. That is completely uninteligible.

[WildCat]

I thought you were refering to the part about 2:15 in, when the cops are telling him to stop resisting. That is completely uninteligible.
Why would the cops tell him to stop resisting if he wasn't? Just watch a few episodes of COPS, always some shirtless jackass refusing to comply all the while yelling "I'm not resisting!". The leg likely broke in the takedown, and the cops are not beating him as ponderingturtle claimed.

[gnome]

So any order from a police officer that is not followed should get a beating then?

Not a beating specifically... but I believe police are authorized to use reasonable force (as in grabbing and moving you) to enforce compliance.

If the police were acting unlawfully, the VERY WORST way to protect your rights is to scuffle with them in any way, including trying to yank yourself away.

If he wanted to make a scene, he might have been better off sitting down and forcing them to carry him. He needs a few lessons on nonviolent resistance.

[RandFan]

It’s not clear at all from the tape if he was resisting or not when they told him to stop resisting. It’s entirely possible that cops just used that phrase to justify their handling of him. “Stop resisting arrest!” WHACK!It's entirely possible he was resisting arrest also.

What do his actions just prior to the tackle suggest? Was he compliant?

[RandFan]

So any order from a police officer that is not followed should get a beating then?So all questions should conatain an unfounded assumption?

[Modified]

Why would the cops tell him to stop resisting if he wasn't? Just watch a few episodes of COPS, always some shirtless jackass refusing to comply all the while yelling "I'm not resisting!". The leg likely broke in the takedown, and the cops are not beating him as ponderingturtle claimed.

It is true that a resisting perp will usually shout "I'm not resisting!" while resisting, but equally true that cops will shout "Stop resisting!" when they are delivering a beating to someone who is not resisting, for the benefit of their tape recorders. So hearing either one of those things from either side tells you nothing about what is actually happening.

[Modified]

I'm not sure how you can be so certain. What is happening at the bottom of that scrum? I can't see it.

There isn't much he could be doing there, unless he was poking them with a pencil. Despite what Bruce Lee fans might think, you need space to deliver a blow. Do you really think they would have charged him with assault if he was unhurt, even if he had been flailing around?

From what I can see I don't find any serious fault with the officers actions after the incident began, but the assault charge is bull. It's purely a preemptive move against a lawsuit.

[RandFan]

There isn't much he could be doing there... I was a wrestler in high school. There's a hell of a lot one can do in close quarters to hurt another person. I've hurt guys without throwing a fist.

Who knows. It doesn't take much to qualify as legally assaulting a cop. A head butt or a bite would easily do it. I kind a doubt he bit anyone and if there was a head butt it was likely not intentional.

My predictions:

The good Reverend: Settles for 6 figures.
The cops: Nothing happens to them.

[gnome]

At 5:53 to go, he lunges for the door... trying to push THROUGH the policeman blocking his way. Not smart. How is that not an assault?

[ponderingturtle]

There is no beating at all in that video. Perhaps you were watching something else?

The problem is that you are putting the real problem at failure to comply, not at running in. I see plenty of reason not to comply with the order to get in the back of the line, especialy if he had properly lined up.


:confused:
To properly protest the 04 republican convention in NY you needed to be in the proper pens quite a distatance from anything.

[ponderingturtle]

Not a beating specifically... but I believe police are authorized to use reasonable force (as in grabbing and moving you) to enforce compliance.

So it does not really matter if the compliance is for something legal or not.

If the police were acting unlawfully, the VERY WORST way to protect your rights is to scuffle with them in any way, including trying to yank yourself away.

Nope you should stand there passively while they use force to get compliance with their illegal actions.

If he wanted to make a scene, he might have been better off sitting down and forcing them to carry him. He needs a few lessons on nonviolent resistance.

This I agree with. It is the assumption that force is always apropraite for people who do not comply with everything an officer says that bugs me.

[ponderingturtle]

So all questions should conatain an unfounded assumption?

Hey it seemed to be what is being advocated in this thread. Do what the police say or else you will get hurt. Doesn't matter if they are acting legaly or not, they are right to hurt you when you don't do what they say.

[The Painter]

To properly protest the 04 republican convention in NY you needed to be in the proper pens quite a distatance from anything.

Your prejudice is showing. It happened at the Democrat convention in Boston also. "Freespeech cages".

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Lexapro/prot-j27.jpg

Protesting at both convention was handled improperly, in my opinion, not just the Republicans.

[ponderingturtle]

Your prejudice is showing. It happened at the Democrat convention in Boston also. "Freespeech cages".

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/Lexapro/prot-j27.jpg

Protesting at both convention was handled improperly, in my opinion, not just the Republicans.

How much spying on protest groups did the boston police do?

[Beerina]

Why would the cops tell him to stop resisting if he wasn't? Just watch a few episodes of COPS, always some shirtless jackass refusing to comply all the while yelling "I'm not resisting!". The leg likely broke in the takedown, and the cops are not beating him as ponderingturtle claimed.

It's surprising how often that happens on Cops. "I'm not resisting" accompanied by clear struggling. It's possible everybody believes they're not resisting, but natural reactions make them resist subconsciously. Doesn't mean the police should therefore back off just because you're trying to not resist, and failing at it.

[ImaginalDisc]

It's surprising how often that happens on Cops. "I'm not resisting" accompanied by clear struggling. It's possible everybody believes they're not resisting, but natural reactions make them resist subconsciously. Doesn't mean the police should therefore back off just because you're trying to not resist, and failing at it.

Well, if you're getting shoved around and manhandled, you are probably going to try to keep your balance to some degree, if for no other reason than we have an instinct to avoid doing an uncontrolled faceplant into the ground. "I'm not resisting" is sometimes a ploy, and sometimes it's "Ok, stop manhandling me like a sack of potatoes, I'm not resisting, so there's no need to throw me down on the ground, 'cause that seems like it'll hurt."

[billydkid]

Why do you hate cops?

DRMy sentiments exactly. And why does he hate America? I think he must hate us for our freedom. Damn commynist.

[billydkid]

It's surprising how often that happens on Cops. "I'm not resisting" accompanied by clear struggling. It's possible everybody believes they're not resisting, but natural reactions make them resist subconsciously. Doesn't mean the police should therefore back off just because you're trying to not resist, and failing at it.What I really like is when the police are clubbing someone and they try to protect themselves and are then charged with resisting arrest. I saw recently where someone was charged with "disrespecting a police officer". I'll see if I can find it.

[billydkid]

How much spying on protest groups did the boston police do?
One really noble and admirable thing police often do is infiltrate protest groups and instigate violence. The right to freely assembly and to express your views is for commynist countries.

[Molinaro]

Hey it seemed to be what is being advocated in this thread. Do what the police say or else you will get hurt. Doesn't matter if they are acting legaly or not, they are right to hurt you when you don't do what they say.

Not at all. What is being advocated is that people should follow police instructions in a public place. If you choose not to follow instructions and the police then use physical means to enforce complience, and you then resist the physical measures taken by the police, and are subsequently injured -- too bad for you Mr Criminal.

[ImaginalDisc]

Not at all. What is being advocated is that people should follow police instructions in a public place. If you choose not to follow instructions and the police then use physical means to enforce complience, and you then resist the physical measures taken by the police, and are subsequently injured -- too bad for you Mr Criminal.

Excuse me, "criminal?" What crime has this hypoethical person been convicted of?

[Molinaro]

Convicted? None.

About to be charged: resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace... take your pick.

I don't get this thread at all. Are there realy people who think it's ok to ignore police instructions?

[ImaginalDisc]

Convicted? None.

About to be charged: resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace... take your pick.

I don't get this thread at all. Are there realy people who think it's ok to ignore police instructions?

Ah, so being apprehended by the police is tantamount to being a criminal. Truely, your respect for due process and civil liberties is an inspiration for us all.

[Gurdur]

Charming place. Remind me not to visit.

[ponderingturtle]

Not at all. What is being advocated is that people should follow police instructions in a public place. If you choose not to follow instructions and the police then use physical means to enforce complience, and you then resist the physical measures taken by the police, and are subsequently injured -- too bad for you Mr Criminal.

So we are back to not complying with any police order deserves physical punishment.

[RandFan]

Hey it seemed to be what is being advocated in this thread. Do what the police say or else you will get hurt. Doesn't matter if they are acting legaly or not, they are right to hurt you when you don't do what they say.No.

The police have policies to deal with situations that have nothing to do with the right to hurt a person. Officers face unknown threats. Officers are hurt and killed every year. Officers are trained to respond to various situations to effectively, and with a high degree of certainty, control a situation and minimize harm.

From the looks of the tape the officers did it by the book.

Look at the tape again, they tried and tried to get the individual to comply. It wasn't until he lunged that the police took him down and that was a result of their training.

If you don't comply you put the officer in a difficult situation. If you lunge or make erratic movements then the officer if FORCED by policy and his training to react in a prescribed way.

If you don't comply and then you so act you put yourself in harms way.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the right to beat someone.

[RandFan]

Ah, so being apprehended by the police is tantamount to being a criminal. Truely, your respect for due process and civil liberties is an inspiration for us all.

Failure to comply with a police order is criminal (see obstruction of justice).

[Ziggurat]

So we are back to not complying with any police order deserves physical punishment.

If you shoot at a cop, and he shoots back and kills you, is that punishment? No, it isn't. It's self-defense. If you're being arrested for drunk driving, and you try to run away and a cop tackles you and you break your nose, is breaking your nose punishment? No, it's something that happened during the process of your apprehension. The question here isn't about punishment in any way, shape, or form. It's about the proper use of force. And that's true whether or not the use of force was legal in this case.

[ImaginalDisc]

Failure to comply with a police order is criminal (see obstruction of justice).

You're putting the cart before the horse. It's a crime, the person performing that act isn't a criminal unless and until they are convicted.

[RandFan]

You're putting the cart before the horse. It's a crime, the person performing that act isn't a criminal unless and until they are convicted.This is just beyond silly.

If I see someone murder another person I don't have to pretend that the event never took place or that it isn't murder if they guy isn't convicted.

By your logic police could never arrest anyone because no crime would ever be committed. If I go into a bank, hold a gun to the tellers head and demand money then at that moment I have not been convicted.

Sorry officer, no arrest today, I've not been convicted and therefore I've committed no crime.

[Molinaro]

Ah, so being apprehended by the police is tantamount to being a criminal. Truely, your respect for due process and civil liberties is an inspiration for us all.

What civil liberty is it that prevents the police from being able to arrest you when you appear to be committing a crime? I'm not familiar with that one. While your at it, what civil liberty is it that allows people to physicaly resist arrest?

[RandFan]

By the way, ID, I don't know how things work where you live but in America we have a probable cause standard.

In United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) criminal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law), probable cause refers to the standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof) by which a police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police) officer may make an arrest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest), conduct a personal or property search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant) or obtain a warrant. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury) believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) of the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution):

I'll bet your country has also worked out a way to get around your little paradox.

[strathmeyer]

Why are officers so radical in the US? ... Maze, Tasers,
pulling Guns, harassing civilians, shooting ... Are there
reasons for the amount of violence I see all over Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22police+brutality%22+Tasere d&search=Search

Oliver, what happened in Munich during the 1972 Olympics when some Palestinians took a bunch of hostages and the German government sent in some relatively untrained officers? Let us know...

[strathmeyer]

Failure to comply with a police order is criminal (see obstruction of justice).

No, failure to comply with a lawful order is criminal. I pity people who think they have to do something just because a police officer tells them to. Do you think an officer can search your car after he pulls you over just because he tells you to let him?

[NobbyNobbs]

From the looks of the tape the officers did it by the book.

Look at the tape again, they tried and tried to get the individual to comply. It wasn't until he lunged that the police took him down and that was a result of their training.


I must respectfully disagree. I'll have to look at the video again, but what i remember from it is that the reverend started to move off to the left. A cop put his hands on both of the reverend's shoulders. That was the first contact. That alone shouldn't have happened. There was no reason to guide the reverend out, considering he hadn't committed a crime at that point.

Then, it seemed to me, the reverend tried to get out from under the cop's grip, shrug him off, so to speak. It happened to be in the direction of the door. Was it a lunge for the door? I don't know. But it was that movement that started the free-for-all.

However, it's my opinion that that movement was in direct response to the cop putting his hands on the guys shoulders. If it were the other way around, a case could be made for "assaulting a police officer". If that's the case, how is this not assault? The guy hadn't made a move yet at that point.

[RandFan]

No, failure to comply with a lawful order is criminal. I pity people who think they have to do something just because a police officer tells them to. Do you think an officer can search your car after he pulls you over just because he tells you to let him?You are being pedantic.

If the officer cites probable cause then absolutely.

In any event, a person must make a personal choice about whether to comply. A person (in this case an officer) with a gun, baton, mace and taser is not a person to be triffled with. I would recomend complying and file a complaint later.

Is that what I do? Hell no. I argue with police. Every goddamn time. I have issues with authority. That does't give the police the right to **** me up. But if they do I'll file a complaint and complain to all who will listend but admit that I messed withsomeone who could **** me up.

[ImaginalDisc]

By the way, ID, I don't know how things work where you live but in America we have a probable cause standard.



I'll bet your country has also worked out a way to get around your little paradox.

Amazing job of ignoring the fact that a person isn't a "criminal" until convicted of something.

[RandFan]

I must respectfully disagree. That's fine. We can disagree. I've watched it again and that is clearly what is happening IMO.

I'll have to look at the video again, but what i remember from it is that the reverend started to move off to the left. A cop put his hands on both of the reverend's shoulders. That was the first contact. That alone shouldn't have happened. There was no reason to guide the reverend out, considering he hadn't committed a crime at that point.

Then, it seemed to me, the reverend tried to get out from under the cop's grip, shrug him off, so to speak. It happened to be in the direction of the door. Was it a lunge for the door? I don't know. But it was that movement that started the free-for-all.

However, it's my opinion that that movement was in direct response to the cop putting his hands on the guys shoulders. If it were the other way around, a case could be made for "assaulting a police officer". If that's the case, how is this not assault? The guy hadn't made a move yet at that point.In the end it doesn't realy matter why the guy made a sudden move toward the door. If a reasonable person could find that the officer has a reason to be concerned with the sudden movement then that is all that is required to justify the actions and keep the officers out of hot water.

Will it keep the government from having to pony up 6 figures? No, that has little to do with anything other than money.

[RandFan]

Amazing job of ignoring the fact that a person isn't a "criminal" until convicted of something.Amazing job of sidestepping the argument by simply using rhetoric.

Can an arrest be made without a conviction? Yes? No?

[brodski]

Are there realy people who think it's ok to ignore police instructions?

yes. Not all polcie instructions are issued with the weight of law, in fact, a lot of the time the police don't even know the law (ask any bailif).

And if you think it's never ok to ignore "police" instructions there are a couple of legally interesting (and disgusting) sexual assult cases, where someone posing as a police officer ordered a manager to strip search female employees.

Are there people who think it's not ok to ignroe police instructions?

[RandFan]

yes. Not all polcie instructions are issued with the weight of law, in fact, a lot of the time the police don't even know the law (ask any bailif).

And if you think it's never ok to ignore "police" instructions there are a couple of legally interesting (and disgusting) sexual assult cases, where someone posing as a police officer ordered a manager to strip search female employees.

Are there people who think it's not ok to ignroe police instructions?If a police officer orders you to do something illegal then it is not ok.

[ImaginalDisc]

Amazing job of sidestepping the argument by simply using rhetoric.

Can an arrest be made without a conviction? Yes? No?

What does that have to do with describing the arrestee as a "Criminal." Being arrested does not make a person a criminal, only a conviction does.

[Beerina]

A criminal is someone who commits a crime, not necessarily someone who's been convicted.

One makes oneself a criminal by committing a crime. That other people in civilized society have decided it is better for everyone, in the long run, to have a public trial before any punishment, to ensure guilt reasonably, is irrelevant. Statements that someone "allegedly" did such-and-such arise more from fear of a lawsuit than of some legal necessitity to refrain from directly maligning someone owing to "innocent until proven guilty."

[The Painter]

Amazing job of ignoring the fact that a person isn't a "criminal" until convicted of something.

That's just not true at all. Just because you don't get caught doesn't mean you are not a criminal, if you partake in criminal activity. You're not a convict, but you are a criminal.

[gnome]

No, failure to comply with a lawful order is criminal. I pity people who think they have to do something just because a police officer tells them to. Do you think an officer can search your car after he pulls you over just because he tells you to let him?

Well, there's different ways of meaning he can't.

If you mean that it's unlawful for him to do so, yes.
If you mean that you have the right to physically prevent him, no.
Your remedy is the courtroom (and you are far more likely to succeed there than by interfering with policemen)

[RandFan]

What does that have to do with describing the arrestee as a "Criminal." Being arrested does not make a person a criminal, only a conviction does. Where the hell were you in the Craig sex thread? I was all alone.

In any event, only in a legal sense which is significant but the fact is that committing a crime makes a person a criminal.

Criminal: (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=criminal) someone who has committed (or been legally convicted of) a crime.

Legally there is a presumption of innocence but if I witness my father murder my mother I don't really have to pretend that it never happened. I don't have to pretend my father is innocent or that my father isn't a criminal. By definition he would be.

[Gurdur]

Where the hell were you in the Craig sex thread? I was all alone.

Naaw, there was a lot of accompanying foot-tapping with a sense of rhythm yet there in that thread. Besides which, check ImaginalDisc is not an undercover officer before you start propositioning like this.

[RandFan]

Naaw, there was a lot of accompanying foot-tapping with a sense of rhythm yet there in that thread. Besides which, check ImaginalDisc is not an undercover officer before you start propositioning like this.:D Sometimes I just don't see the forest for the trees.

[Elind]

Clearly there was no assault. He may have been lunging for the door, but it appears he was just trying to slip away from the hands that were beginning to restrain him. In most jurisdictions, a felony "assaulting a police officer" charge is standard procedure whenever someone is beaten by police, rightly or wrongly. Then, if the officer is uninjured and the perp/victim is injured, the felony assault will be reduced to misdemeanor assault to avoid a change of venue.

Clearly he was resisting arrest or escort from the location.

That much is obvious even though it took only a second or two.

I can't tell what the original problem was, although I have some suspicion about the camera being so conveniently available for the entire incident, including from before there was an incident.

People are sensitive these days about extremists of all colors, and most of us know that. This guy got his own leg broken by stupidity, if it was broken.

[Elind]

Convicted? None.

About to be charged: resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace... take your pick.

I don't get this thread at all. Are there realy people who think it's ok to ignore police instructions?

Only when they don't get their way.:cool:

[fishbob]

Look at the tape again, they tried and tried to get the individual to comply. It wasn't until he lunged that the police took him down and that was a result of their training.

Look at the tape again. There was no 'lunge' until after an officer put his hands on the revs back. In other words, the motion you characterize as a 'lunge' resulted from an action of one of the police. Was that action a push or a grab or an attempt at steering?

[fuelair]

You're putting the cart before the horse. It's a crime, the person performing that act isn't a criminal unless and until they are convicted.
That is a technicality of language - and it has no point in the meaning of the overall discussion.:)

[RandFan]

Look at the tape again. There was no 'lunge' until after an officer put his hands on the revs back. In other words, the motion you characterize as a 'lunge' resulted from an action of one of the police. Was that action a push or a grab or an attempt at steering?I just watched it. For the 6th time now.

BTW, something that I'm not sure has been brought up before. This gentleman is clearly agitated and he is not calming down. That's a big red flag for police.

No it's your turn to go back and watch.

Ok, first, it becomes clear that this individual is not going to comply and so the officer turns to another cop, I speculate to begin the process of putting the individual under arrest. The individual then moves forward. Bad move, when you are being questioned by the police it is a very bad idea to make such movements. As the individual is moving forward an officer reaches out with both hands and grabs the insured, it is then he screams that he is not going to be arrested. As he does this he twists and contorts in an attempt to avoid arrest. Not only is this asinine but it is resisting arrest and any injury to another officer is assault.

The more I watch it the more I think I could easily be that guy. Like I said, I've got issues with authority. I would deserve getting a citation as this guy deserves.

I don't know if I would be so much of an ahole as to sue. I'd like to think not.

[OMGturt1es]

I don't get this thread at all. Are there realy people who think it's ok to ignore police instructions?

well, duh. i can think of countless extreme, unrealistic examples-- jews in ovens, anyone?-- that illustrate the problem with complying with orders based only on authority, but i don't need to cite these, because we've all read of officers getting busted for ordering sexual favors from civilians.

is it smart to not comply? probably not, unless a camera is rolling, and there's a great deal of public scrutiny.


Do you think an officer can search your car after he pulls you over just because he tells you to let him?

this happened to me. i was pulled over. i belong to a demographic that is suspect-- i'm a young male adult with long hair-- so the officer probably figured that he could find drugs in my car. i was TOLD my car would be searched. when i asked the officer if he was supposed to ask my permission, i learned that not complying with an officer-- whether i have the right or not-- is useless. i was yelled at, threatened with arrest, and treated terribly. $500 later, i got my car from the tow yard. and yes, they searched, despite the fact that i did NOT give them permission. all they found was some moldy food. at least i wasted their time.

regarding this fellow, my question is: did he break the law? if so, then he should have been tackled when he tried to leave. if not, WHY were the officers wasting his time, and WHY did they tackle him when he tried to leave?

whether they have the legal authority or not matters not; if this fellow had not broken the law, he should have been free to leave. if the law says otherwise, the law ought to be changed.

[ImaginalDisc]

That is a technicality of language - and it has no point in the meaning of the overall discussion.:)

I think it's just the deliberate use of a pejorative meant to smear the person involved.

I'm not describing the cops as "assilants," am I? "Cops" is neutral. "Suspect," "arrestee," those are neutral and don't presume guilt.

[RandFan]

this happened to me. i was pulled over. i belong to a demographic that is suspect-- i'm a young male adult with long hair-- so the officer probably figured that he could find drugs in my car. That sucks. My son has long hair and wears a baret, with his beard he looks like a beatnick. He's been pulled over twice for suspicion of drugs. Both times he came home and told me about he. He kinda thinks its funny right now because he doesn't take drugs but he might change his mind if it keeps happening.

I tell him to comply.


regarding this fellow, my question is: did he break the law? if so, then he should have been tackled when he tried to leave. if not, WHY were the officers wasting his time, and WHY did they tackle him when he tried to leave. We don't have all of the information. We don't know why they were asking him to go to the back of the line. All we know is that he was asked to go to the back of the line. When he did not comply he was very likely violating the law. I don't know what specific one but there needs to be order and the officers need to be able to do their job.

whether they have the legal authority or not matters not; if this fellow had not broken the law, he should have been free to leave. if the law says otherwise, the law ought to be changed.Oh, he was absolutely free to leave. They would have been happy if he would have left before he reached a point in which it became clear that he was not going to comply. At some point, policy dictates that the officers must act.

[Modified]

Clearly he was resisting arrest or escort from the location.

That is not assault though. My problem, again, is that whether or not the perp/victim is charged with assault often depends on how badly they were injured. Struggle to get away without getting injured and you may be charged with resisting arrest; struggle to get away and get your leg broken and you will almost certainly be charged with assault as well.

[RandFan]

That is not assault though. My problem, again, is that whether or not the perp/victim is charged with assault often depends on how badly they were injured. Struggle to get away without getting injured and you may be charged with resisting arrest; struggle to get away and get your leg broken and you will almost certainly be charged with assault as well.Sounds anecdotal.

[brodski]

If a police officer orders you to do something illegal then it is not ok.

And is it up to individual citizens to know when the instruction given to them by a polcie officer is legal or not?
Is asking someone to undress illigal?
As I said, the cases were legally, very interesting.

[Modified]

Sounds anecdotal.

I know of no studies, but it is accepted truth by several lawyers I have talked to who specialize in civil rights lawsuits in police beating cases. Also accepted truth is that the squad car cameras will magically malfunction or the tapes will be lost in such a case. According to them, these things happen far too often to be coincidence. I am peripherally involved in a case in which both of those things happened. The victim was not arrested and charges weren't filed until the police learned of the victim's injuries, and they claim that the cameras in six squad cars malfunctioned simultaneously. The supposed camera malfunctions, and much else, was predicted by the lawyer in advance, and explained to me in script-like fashion: "OK, this is what we will do, then they will do this, then we will do this, then they will do this."

[RandFan]

I know of no studies, but it is accepted truth by several lawyers I have talked to who specialize in civil rights lawsuits in police beating cases. Let me See if I understand this. You want to compound your error by appealing to authority and not only that but authority, the veracity of which we can't verify or even verify if they do in fact accept it?

Yeah, ok, I know several homeopathic practitioners who accept the truth of homeopathy. One of them spoke to Jesus so not only is homeopathy effective but Jesus saves. Praise Jesus.

I know, I'm being a smart ass. I can't help it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It’s not clear at all from the tape if he was resisting or not when they told him to stop resisting. It’s entirely possible that cops just used that phrase to justify their handling of him. “Stop resisting arrest!” WHACK!

I will only add what I observe from watching Cops on Saturday night:

1) While the cops are cuffing crooks on the ground, and they continue to fight, invariably they always say "I'm not resisting!!!", all the while they are fighting and struggling, i.e. resisting.

2) After a foot chase and tackle, the one thing every single one of them says is "I wasn't doing anything".

Worth thinking about.

[Random]

I will only add what I observe from watching Cops on Saturday night:

1) While the cops are cuffing crooks on the ground, and they continue to fight, invariably they always say "I'm not resisting!!!", all the while they are fighting and struggling, i.e. resisting.

2) After a foot chase and tackle, the one thing every single one of them says is "I wasn't doing anything".

Worth thinking about.

Hey, remember that episode of Cops when those white cops in Mississippi pulled over that black guy, then spent five minutes beating him with their batons yelling racial epithets? Oh, wait that didn't happen.

Somehow, when the police have a video crew from a nationally broadcast television program following them for their entire patrol, we never see those officers engage in police brutality. I wonder why that is...

[Random]

We don't have all of the information. We don't know why they were asking him to go to the back of the line. All we know is that he was asked to go to the back of the line. When he did not comply he was very likely violating the law. I don't know what specific one but there needs to be order and the officers need to be able to do their job.

Well, based on an interview the Reverend conducted after he got out of the hospital, it looks like it started with a misunderstanding and an unreasonable security officer.

His version goes something like this.

1. He arrives at the building and begins to wait in line.
2. As he is waiting in line, a reporter comes up to him and asks to conduct an interview.
3. He asks Officer A if he can briefly leave the line to be interviewed.
4. Officer A tells him it is alright and points him to a quiet area where the interview can be conducted.
5. He leaves the line, and the interview begins.

At this point, things get a bit fuzzy, and this is where any court case will start to get into conflicting testimony

6. Someone goes down the line handing out post-its?
7. The interview over, the Reverend returns to the line and continues to wait.
8. After some time, the line begins to move and Officer B notices that the Reverend does not have a post-it.
9. Reverend explains to Officer B that he had been waiting in line and only left breifly to be interviewed and requested permision from Officer A before he did this.
10. Officer A confirms the Reverends account to Officer B.
11. Officer B does not want to hear this, and says that the Reverend must go to the back of the line because he does not have a post-it.
12. A companion who was waiting in line offers the Reverend his post-it.
13. Officer B now says the Reverend will not be allowed in at all. And if he does not leave he will be placed under arrest.

Video starts...

[RandFan]

Well, based on an interview the Reverend conducted after he got out of the hospital, it looks like it started with a misunderstanding and an unreasonable security officer.

His version goes something like this.

1. He arrives at the building and begins to wait in line.
2. As he is waiting in line, a reporter comes up to him and asks to conduct an interview.
3. He asks Officer A if he can briefly leave the line to be interviewed.
4. Officer A tells him it is alright and points him to a quiet area where the interview can be conducted.
5. He leaves the line, and the interview begins.

At this point, things get a bit fuzzy, and this is where any court case will start to get into conflicting testimony

6. Someone goes down the line handing out post-its?
7. The interview over, the Reverend returns to the line and continues to wait.
8. After some time, the line begins to move and Officer B notices that the Reverend does not have a post-it.
9. Reverend explains to Officer B that he had been waiting in line and only left breifly to be interviewed and requested permision from Officer A before he did this.
10. Officer A confirms the Reverends account to Officer B.
11. Officer B does not want to hear this, and says that the Reverend must go to the back of the line because he does not have a post-it.
12. A companion who was waiting in line offers the Reverend his post-it.
13. Officer B now says the Reverend will not be allowed in at all. And if he does not leave he will be placed under arrest.

Video starts... Thank you.

If, and I emphasize "if", that is true then I damn sure understand the Reverend being upset. I would likely have done the very same thing. Not that I'm smart but that I hate unfairness and I have issues with authority.

You still have to comply.

[Cleon]

I will only add what I observe from watching Cops on Saturday night:

1) While the cops are cuffing crooks on the ground, and they continue to fight, invariably they always say "I'm not resisting!!!", all the while they are fighting and struggling, i.e. resisting.

2) After a foot chase and tackle, the one thing every single one of them says is "I wasn't doing anything".

Worth thinking about.

That's a new one. Argumentum ad Cops.

[billydkid]

No, failure to comply with a lawful order is criminal. I pity people who think they have to do something just because a police officer tells them to. Do you think an officer can search your car after he pulls you over just because he tells you to let him?And what constitutes a lawful order is whatever the police tell you? If the police apprehend you in the commission or a crime or if they apprehend you as a suspect in a crime it is one thing (or two really), but this notion that you just have to do what the police tell you to do simply because they tell you to do it and it is a crime not to do so is truly creepy. I know the police are invariably professional and rational as they carry out their duties would never infringe on the rights of any innocent person minding his own business, but still....
It seems there is an authoritarian streak that runs deep and true through the hearts of many otherwise rational people to the point where they are complacent about the idea of an authority figure arbitrarily exercising their authority over people who are not breaking the law. Maybe it's a good thing giving the police a chance to flex their muscles on bystanders so they will be in good shape when they encounter actual criminals. It's good to let these folks blow off a little steam now and then.

Sure, it might be better for them to expend their angst on the heads of people who are actually a threat other people, but what the hey, you've got to take what opportunities you get - and who knows, maybe if the person has the gall to stand up for his rights or presumes he has the right to be left in peace they can get a crime out of it after all. I see where someone was charged with the crime of "disrespecting a law enforcement officer". He back talked a cop. Hmmm. Now we are legally bound to "respect" people because they are employees of the state.

[billydkid]

I will only add what I observe from watching Cops on Saturday night:

1) While the cops are cuffing crooks on the ground, and they continue to fight, invariably they always say "I'm not resisting!!!", all the while they are fighting and struggling, i.e. resisting.

2) After a foot chase and tackle, the one thing every single one of them says is "I wasn't doing anything".

Worth thinking about.I think you need to check out youtube.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think you need to check out youtube.

No

[RandFan]

And what constitutes a lawful order is whatever the police tell you? If the police apprehend you in the commission or a crime or if they apprehend you as a suspect in a crime it is one thing (or two really), but this notion that you just have to do what the police tell you to do simply because they tell you to do it and it is a crime not to do so is truly creepy. Well first off no one is saying you have to do whatever the police tell you. You have to do what they lawfully tell you to do. Otherwise you are obstructing justice. It's the only way that the police can do their job.

Now, there is civil disobedience. It's a tradition in America. The courts tend to be lenient for those who are exercising such disobedience. However, that you are committing civil disobedience doesn't justify your actions. You have to be willing to pay a price for your actions.

Otherwise everyone would have a right to obstruct justice without a penalty.

No, it's not creepy. It's a good system. The cops have to put up with aholes like me who tell them that they are wrong and push it too the limit. They DON'T have the right to simply kick my ass. They do have a right to arrest me if we have reached an impasse and they tell me to move on or they will arrest me (this has happened to me on 5 separate occasions). If, at that point, I don't back down then they can arrest me. If I refuse to comply then they can tackle me.

Police departments have for decades worked to balance the rights of citizens with the protection of officers and those who are being arrested.

I think you are really stretching to find anything creepy in this.

[gnome]

And what constitutes a lawful order is whatever the police tell you? If the police apprehend you in the commission or a crime or if they apprehend you as a suspect in a crime it is one thing (or two really), but this notion that you just have to do what the police tell you to do simply because they tell you to do it and it is a crime not to do so is truly creepy.

It is subject to review after the fact--and that is the best time to contest it. As I see it, in most cases the policeman is far more likely to get into trouble--and your complaint is far more likely to have lasting effect--if you cooperate now, and lawyer later, than if you defy them on the spot.

There is a place for civil disobedience, but there are smart ways to do that as well. Lunging through cops isn't the smart way.

[Upchurch]

Rev. Yearwood's side of the story: (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/1445202)
REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR.: Well, on September 10, I went to hear the hearing, and I can tell you that it was, for me, as a former Air Force officer, obviously someone who is the President of the Hip Hop Caucus leading a march on Saturday, I knew how important it was to hear the general's report for myself. I knew that when officers lie, soldiers die. So I was going in, in essence, to make government more transparent. It was also critical for me as a person of color to be in the room to report back to my community.

But instead, when I got there, I was waiting in line. I was standing there. I had to do a radio interview. I asked the officer, I said, “Can I step out of line for a second to do an interview?” He said, “No problem.” I did my interview. I came back to the line. I got back in the line. I was waiting.

And then, all of a sudden -- it was somewhat suspicious -- another officer came down, was passing out blue post-it notes. And as he was coming in the line, he actually came to me and actually Colonel Ann Wright, who was standing with me. It was amazing. The two officers who were going in to hear General Petraeus, he actually told us both, “You can't get in,” and then walked past us.

And so, me and Colonel Ann Wright looked at each other and said, “Why can't we get in?” He said, “You can't get in.” And so, we went up forward, and we kept walking to the front of the line and said, “Why are we being denied?” “You just can't get in.” And so, somebody came and passed one of the blue post-it notes to Colonel Wright and put it in her hand. And she showed it to him. “I didn't give you that.” She said, “I know. Why can't we get in?” He said, “Well, OK, you can get in.” And she said, “What about Reverend Yearwood?” He said, “No, he can't get in.”

And that’s when it started. I said, “Why are you singling me out? What is going on?” It’s important to know. We have this huge rally at the White House, and a march to the Capitol is coming Saturday. And I know my picture is on the flier. But regardless, I asked, “Why are you singling me out?”

At that point in time, they became to be aggressive, and they got around me. And I said that -- “You’re going to be arrested.” I said, “What am I going to be arrested for? What have I done? I just want to go inside and hear the hearing for myself.” At that point in time, one came behind me, said, “You’re going to be arrested.” And then somebody grabbed me on my shoulder. And I kind of turned. Amy, by the time I turned, I was on the ground. And I actually just felt myself going headfirst into the concrete.

For what it's worth, I don't think we should jump to conclusions without hearing both sides of it. I would like to know why (or if) the officer decided that Yearwood "can't get in." Unless there is a valid security or safety issue at play, the officer has no right to deny him access to a public hearing.

[Upchurch]

Lunging through cops isn't the smart way.
I'm not sure we are looking at a man lunging to the right. There is an officer to Yearwood's right holding on to his arm as Yearwood suddenly jerks to the right.

If you look at his body posture, Yearwood appears to be pulling back to the left away from the door and the officer pulling on him (if that is what is happening). The two other cops grab him on his left side and push him down and to the right, toward the door. If he were lunging in that direction, those cops should have been leaning to the left to restrain him, I would think.


eta: Honestly, these kinds of handy-cam videos are so hard to parse, I'm not sure how anyone can conclude anything about a fast sequence of events from them.

[ponderingturtle]

No.

The police have policies to deal with situations that have nothing to do with the right to hurt a person. Officers face unknown threats. Officers are hurt and killed every year. Officers are trained to respond to various situations to effectively, and with a high degree of certainty, control a situation and minimize harm.

From the looks of the tape the officers did it by the book.

Look at the tape again, they tried and tried to get the individual to comply. It wasn't until he lunged that the police took him down and that was a result of their training.

If you don't comply you put the officer in a difficult situation. If you lunge or make erratic movements then the officer if FORCED by policy and his training to react in a prescribed way.

If you don't comply and then you so act you put yourself in harms way.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the right to beat someone.

And that has nothing to do with what people are advocating on this thread.

People here have taken the position that regardless of the order of a police officer if you do not follow it you deserve physical punishment.

The actual event I don't have much of a problem with. Rushing past police officers should not be permitted, but I am not at all convinced that the police officiers orrigional order was supportable, and deserving forceful enforcement.

[ponderingturtle]

If you shoot at a cop, and he shoots back and kills you, is that punishment? No, it isn't. It's self-defense. If you're being arrested for drunk driving, and you try to run away and a cop tackles you and you break your nose, is breaking your nose punishment? No, it's something that happened during the process of your apprehension. The question here isn't about punishment in any way, shape, or form. It's about the proper use of force. And that's true whether or not the use of force was legal in this case.

If a police officer tells you that you can't enter somewhere because of your politics that is equivelent to shooting at a police officer now?

[ponderingturtle]

If a police officer orders you to do something illegal then it is not ok.

Its not illegal to strip, so they where not ordering them to do something illegal, just illegaly ordering someone.

[ponderingturtle]

Well first off no one is saying you have to do whatever the police tell you. You have to do what they lawfully tell you to do. Otherwise you are obstructing justice. It's the only way that the police can do their job.

Now prove that the innitial order was lawful.

[RandFan]

And that has nothing to do with what people are advocating on this thread.

People here have taken the position that regardless of the order of a police officer if you do not follow it you deserve physical punishment. You will have to show this, what people and what are the posts that advocate the position?

FTR, if a person is an idiot and gets his ass kicked then it's hard to have much sympathy. A guy who jumps into a lions den doesn't really deserve to be eaten. I'm not that contemptable of idiocy but I understand the knee jerk reaction that says, the guy deserved it.

The actual event I don't have much of a problem with. Rushing past police officers should not be permitted, but I am not at all convinced that the police officiers orrigional order was supportable, and deserving forceful enforcement. Perhaps not but a person has to make a decision as to what he is willing to do. If there is a guy in my home that has a gun and says that I have to leave his order is not deserving of forceful enforcement but I'm going to leave anyway.

Once an officer has made a decision then the weight of the system in on his side for that moment. You can be guilty of obstruction of justice even if you are right. That's a fact. Now, a judge might look on the whole affair and decide that the officer should not have acted and therefore dismiss charges against you but that his not an obligation in the law.

[RandFan]

Its not illegal to strip, so they where not ordering them to do something illegal, just illegaly ordering someone.Pedantic.

[RandFan]

Now prove that the innitial order was lawful. What was unlawful about it?

The officer is charged with a duty. Officers are not perfect. They are not robots. It is possible that an officer can make a mistake. In the interest of order it is reasonable and required that you follow the directions of police officers unless they order you to do something that is outside the scope of their responsibility. Asking a person to go to the back of the line or even to leave is NOT unlawful.

It might be wrong and you could file a complaint but in the interest of keeping the peace it is expected that you will follow the officers directions. Second guessing an officer's directive at the scene is NOT in the interest of order as nearly every one thinks that they are in the right.

I know I do when I argue with an officer.

[Upchurch]

What was unlawful about it?
A US citizen being barred access to a public forum for no discernible or given reason? Yes, that is unlawful in the sense that it is unconstitutional. What happened later is a different matter and not entirely clear to me based on the video.


Asking a person to go to the back of the line or even to leave is NOT unlawful.
On that point, I simply do not understand your position. On what grounds does a police officer have the lawful right to demand that someone leave their position in a line and go to the back?

[Molinaro]

People here have taken the position that regardless of the order of a police officer if you do not follow it you deserve physical punishment.

Do you realy think a blatant lie like that will just get passed by? What the heck are you thinking when you spout something like that?

Nobody has said anything about 'deserve physical punishment'. In fact, it has been restated multiple times, and yet you continue to boldly lie about what is being said.

[Upchurch]

Do you realy think a blatant lie like that will just get passed by? What the heck are you thinking when you spout something like that?

Nobody has said anything about 'deserve physical punishment'. In fact, it has been restated multiple times, and yet you continue to boldly lie about what is being said.

Guilty. Break his other leg too.


I know that Rob does mean that literally, but it does convey the sentiment, wouldn't you say?

I know this is the politics section and all, but does that mean that reasonable people can't disagree? I'm reading assumptions that "so-and-so clearly did such-and-such" when it isn't clear to me at all. I would love to hear the official police report about why Yearwood was asked to move to the back of the line, or out of the line, or barred from the hearing room in general. I would also like to know their take on the series of events. I've been looking but have only found pro-Yearwood accounts.

[RandFan]

A US citizen being barred access to a public forum for no discernible or given reason? You are basing this on an assumption. You might be right. I can't read the officers mind and I've not heard his side of the story. I don't have all of the evidence in front of me.

On that point, I simply do not understand your position. On what grounds does a police officer have the lawful right to demand that someone leave their position in a line and go to the back? I'm not an attorney so I can't really, definitively, tell you what is legal and what is not. So let me choose different language.

The act of preventing a person from entering a public meeting is not per se wrong. It depends on the reasons that an officer does so, right?

Arbitrarily telling someone to get out of line is wrong. Capriciously telling someone to get out of line is wrong. I'm willing to bet that there are laws that would prevent an officer arbitrarily and/or capriciously preventing someone from entering a public meeting.

Better?

[ponderingturtle]

You will have to show this, what people and what are the posts that advocate the position?

The ones I was replying to. The ones that said that as soon as he did not do what the officer said(go to the back of the line) that he deserved physical punishment.

Specificaly ones like yours that don't care if the order is legal, or not. You must comply or else.

How about this It really makes no difference whether he was properly in line or not, once the police order him to the end of the line it is his duty to comply. He clearly didn't, tried to force his way through the door and then resisted despite his claims otherwise.

And I see no evidence of a broken leg, just him claiming it was. A any rate, it's clear that whatever injury he had to his leg wasn't intentional.

Doesn't seem to care one wit about police preventing people from entering congress illegaly.

[ponderingturtle]

What was unlawful about it?

The officer is charged with a duty. Officers are not perfect. They are not robots. It is possible that an officer can make a mistake. In the interest of order it is reasonable and required that you follow the directions of police officers unless they order you to do something that is outside the scope of their responsibility. Asking a person to go to the back of the line or even to leave is NOT unlawful.

So you support keeping all protests in their legaly defined pens.

[RandFan]

I know this is the politics section and all, but does that mean that reasonable people can't disagree? I'm reading assumptions that "so-and-so clearly did such-and-such" when it isn't clear to me at all. I would love to hear the official police report about why Yearwood was asked to move to the back of the line, or out of the line, or barred from the hearing room in general. I would also like to know their take on the series of events. I've been looking but have only found pro-Yearwood accounts.Perfectly reasonable.

I was against the knee jerk assumption that the officers acted with malicious intent.

I don't know that.

Further, in the interest of security and order, we don't really have the luxury of refusing to comply with police directives every time we feel aggrieved.

There are procedures for complaining and addressing these types of issues. That said, I don't mind civil disobedience. However, when a person puts himself in harms way for his or her cause then that person needs to bear some of the responsibility for his or her actions.

Which is why I've always backed down when I've pushed an officer to the point of being arrested. I'm cognizant of that responsibility.

[RandFan]

So you support keeping all protests in their legaly defined pens. What I find most objectionable are straw men.

If you cared at all I would point to Upchurch and his ability to use reason and logic to make an argument as an object lesson for you. But I know better.

[ponderingturtle]

I know that Rob does mean that literally, but it does convey the sentiment, wouldn't you say?

I know this is the politics section and all, but does that mean that reasonable people can't disagree? I'm reading assumptions that "so-and-so clearly did such-and-such" when it isn't clear to me at all. I would love to hear the official police report about why Yearwood was asked to move to the back of the line, or out of the line, or barred from the hearing room in general. I would also like to know their take on the series of events. I've been looking but have only found pro-Yearwood accounts.

I very much agree with this. I was never trying to comment on the case, just all the people who think that a police officer can not give an illegal order.

If he had complied with the illegal order, does anyone think anything would have brought up the situation and prevented the police from acting unconstutionaly?

[ponderingturtle]

What I find most objectionable are straw men.

If you cared at all I would point to Upchurch and his ability to use reason and logic to make an argument as an object lesson for you. But I know better.

So all the poeple in the protest pens at the national conventions 4 years ago where straw men now?

Or is connecting this to a crack down on dissent now irrational.

[RandFan]

Doesn't seem to care one wit about police preventing people from entering congress illegaly. Wildcat has a point consitent with mine. If you are orderd to do something whether it is proper or not you risk harm and put all of the officers in a difficult position and in harms way. At the moment an officer is issuing an order it is the responsibility of those involved to see that it is complied with.

To those following along (see my recent posts).

[RandFan]

So all the poeple in the protest pens at the national conventions 4 years ago where straw men now? What does this possibly have to do with the discussion at hand?

This is a red herring and does not at all speak to the issues.

Or is connecting this to a crack down on dissent now irrational. We are addressing specifically the actions of the individual at this event. The question being, what should happen if an officer gives an order? Should you comply? Should you bear any responsibility for refusing to comply with the directions of an officer?

BTW, I don't at all expect you to grasp any of this. I no longer take you seriously. You've shown a distinct unwillingness to be... oh damn, never mind. [rule 8]ing [rule 8]

[Upchurch]

A US citizen being barred access to a public forum for no discernible or given reason?
You are basing this on an assumption. You might be right. I can't read the officers mind and I've not heard his side of the story. I don't have all of the evidence in front of me.
I'm not assuming it. I have been unable to discern any reason to make a person move to the back of a line like that and no reason has been given that I have been able to find. And that isn't from a lack of looking.


The act of preventing a person from entering a public meeting is not per se wrong. It depends on the reasons that an officer does so, right?

Arbitrarily telling someone to get out of line is wrong. Capriciously telling someone to get out of line is wrong. I'm willing to bet that there are laws that would prevent an officer arbitrarily and/or capriciously preventing someone from entering a public meeting.

Better?
Much, but there are very few legitimate reasons I can think. Cutting in line, for example, and that does not appear to be the case. If Yearwood were perceived to be a security or safety risk, he would not have been asked to go to the back of the line. He would have been asked to leave (or forcibly removed if necessary).

There are times to give benefit of the doubt and there are times to question authority. IF Yearwood's "You don't get in"/"Move to the back of the line" story is true, there was some very inappropriate actions taken by the security at the hearing.



In the interest of full disclosure, I will point out that this local story (http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=129127) has been breaking this last week. No one who is more native than I am is surprised by this story. My wife, in fact, tells me that when she in high school, the girls knew to not drive through that area alone.

My tendency to question authorities' movtives may be unusually strong right now.

[ponderingturtle]

Wildcat has a point consitent with mine. If you are orderd to do something whether it is proper or not you risk harm and put all of the officers in a difficult position and in harms way. At the moment an officer is issuing an order it is the responsibility of those involved to see that it is complied with.

To those following along (see my recent posts).

So once again the legality of the order is not something you should concern yourself with.

[ponderingturtle]

What does this possibly have to do with the discussion at hand?

To further demonstrate the extents that the police will go through in various areas to stifle dissent. The NYPD recently had to turn over the documents related to their inserting undercover agents into protest groups.

This is a red herring and does not at all speak to the issues.
No it speaks to likely motive of the officer. But we are supposed to believe that officers ambush helpless senators in bathrooms and act appropriately when the prevent people from attending public functions.

What a strange view.

[Upchurch]

Further, in the interest of security and order, we don't really have the luxury of refusing to comply with police directives every time we feel aggrieved.

There are procedures for complaining and addressing these types of issues. That said, I don't mind civil disobedience. However, when a person puts himself in harms way for his or her cause then that person needs to bear some of the responsibility for his or her actions.
I understand that Yearwood is a political activist. He may be rather familiar with civil disobedience. Although he may have been taken by surprised when he was not allowed into a public hearing.

I have to wonder if he was somewhat reminded, as I was when reading this thread, of another black person asked to go to the back (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks).

eta: I should add that I'm not saying race had anything to do with it.

[billydkid]

Wildcat has a point consitent with mine. If you are orderd to do something whether it is proper or not you risk harm and put all of the officers in a difficult position and in harms way. At the moment an officer is issuing an order it is the responsibility of those involved to see that it is complied with.

To those following along (see my recent posts).Let me get this straight, if a policeman orders you to do something that is not proper and you don't obey YOU are putting the OFFICER in a difficult position?

[WildCat]

People here have taken the position that regardless of the order of a police officer if you do not follow it you deserve physical punishment.
You made this up out of thin air. I haven't seen anyone say anyone deserves "physical punishment" for disobeying a police officer. And it has been pointed out to you before that the Rev. was not beaten, as you have claimed.

If you can't make a case without resorting to straw man arguments, perhaps you should re-examine your position?

[WildCat]

Doesn't seem to care one wit about police preventing people from entering congress illegaly.
Yes, I do care about that. However, I see no evidence at all that this was the case in this instance. To me, it appears that the officers were simply trying to keep the line orderly and (maybe) made a mistake and thought the Rev. was cutting in line. The Rev. then got confrontational with the police, which anyone with half a brain knows is unlikely to get you what you want unless what you want is to get arrested.

[kalen]

An interview with the Rev. about the incident and surrounding events:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/1445202


I was standing there. I had to do a radio interview. I asked the officer, I said, “Can I step out of line for a second to do an interview?” He said, “No problem.” I did my interview. I came back to the line. I got back in the line. I was waiting.

And then, all of a sudden -- it was somewhat suspicious -- another officer came down, was passing out blue post-it notes. And as he was coming in the line, he actually came to me and actually Colonel Ann Wright, who was standing with me. It was amazing. The two officers who were going in to hear General Petraeus, he actually told us both, “You can't get in,” and then walked past us.


And so, me and Colonel Ann Wright looked at each other and said, “Why can't we get in?” He said, “You can't get in.” And so, we went up forward, and we kept walking to the front of the line and said, “Why are we being denied?” “You just can't get in.” And so, somebody came and passed one of the blue post-it notes to Colonel Wright and put it in her hand. And she showed it to him. “I didn't give you that.” She said, “I know. Why can't we get in?” He said, “Well, OK, you can get in.” And she said, “What about Reverend Yearwood?” He said, “No, he can't get in.”
And that’s when it started. I said, “Why are you singling me out?



JUAN GONZALEZ: Reverend Yearwood, to your knowledge, was anyone else who was on the line singled out and told they could not come in?


REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR.: Well, there were three of us. One was Gail from CODEPINK -- Ann Wright and myself were the three who were singled out. All of us are obviously very prominent peace activists. And so, we were the three. Gail, who was singled out, kind of moved to the side, and then myself and Ann Wright were right there at the front. And then somebody put a blue post-it note in Ann's hands. And then he just let her in, so it wasn't about anything else. And then he just singled us out. He said, “You’re not getting in.” It was amazing. It was just stopping the peace activists, like just stopping the peace activists from going in.Three high profile peace activists - no one else. Heh.

[RandFan]

I'm not assuming it. I have been unable to discern any reason to make a person move to the back of a line like that and no reason has been given that I have been able to find. And that isn't from a lack of looking. Are you not assuming that he was in the line in the first place and or that the officers didn't have some other valid reasons?

I really don't know.

Much, but there are very few legitimate reasons I can think. Cutting in line, for example, and that does not appear to be the case. If Yearwood were perceived to be a security or safety risk, he would not have been asked to go to the back of the line. He would have been asked to leave (or forcibly removed if necessary). Not a bad argument. I wish others could learn from you. I don't know that to be the case. It sounds reasonable.

There are times to give benefit of the doubt and there are times to question authority. IF Yearwood's "You don't get in"/"Move to the back of the line" story is true, there was some very inappropriate actions taken by the security at the hearing. I can only fall back on what I've said before. You take a risk in failing to comply. There is no gurantee that a judge will find in your favor.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will point out that this local story (http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=129127) has been breaking this last week. No one who is more native than I am is surprised by this story. My wife, in fact, tells me that when she in high school, the girls knew to not drive through that area alone.

My tendency to question authorities' movtives may be unusually strong right now.Understood. Thanks.

[RandFan]

Let me get this straight, if a policeman orders you to do something that is not proper and you don't obey YOU are putting the OFFICER in a difficult position? Billy, take a deep breath, slow down and pay attention to what I write.

Now go back and read it again. Officer[s]. Please note the plural.

Taking that fact into account and to amswer your question. Yes.

[RandFan]

So once again the legality of the order is not something you should concern yourself with. I realize that you want to make this a dichotomy. I'm not going to bite. Sorry.

[RandFan]

To further demonstrate the extents that the police will go through in various areas to stifle dissent. The NYPD recently had to turn over the documents related to their inserting undercover agents into protest groups. This still does not explain what the sam hell you are talking about.

No it speaks to likely motive of the officer. But we are supposed to believe that officers ambush helpless senators in bathrooms and act appropriately when the prevent people from attending public functions.
There is one hell of a lot of assumptions in there.

I make no assumptions.
The police might be guilty in both cases.
The accused might have ligitimate complaints in both cases.I respect civil disobedience. I likely would have acted exactly like this guy did to a point. I don't know if I would have pushed it as far as he did. I can certainly empathise with him.

Since you brought up Craig I'm guessing you still won't appologize to me even when shown wrong and even when shown that you were dishonest.

What do you think about the ACLU's position?

[RandFan]

I understand that Yearwood is a political activist. He may be rather familiar with civil disobedience. Although he may have been taken by surprised when he was not allowed into a public hearing.

I have to wonder if he was somewhat reminded, as I was when reading this thread, of another black person asked to go to the back (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks).

eta: I should add that I'm not saying race had anything to do with it. I've not personally faulted the reverand.

I've only stated that in such instances one needs to understand that the police have a job to do and they have policies to follow. Even if we assume that the officer who refused the Reverend's right to enter the meeting did so inappropriately, once the wheels were in motion he needed to comply or suffer the consequences.

I'll say it again, if I were in his position I would likely do the same. I just might commit civil disobedience in defense of my cause. I would understand that the officers who supported my arrest were doing their job and I might receive a citation and I might even get hurt.

[Upchurch]

Are you not assuming that he was in the line in the first place and or that the officers didn't have some other valid reasons?
Well, the only evidence we have at this point is Yearwood and his supporters saying he was in line and no one, as of this writing, is contradicting that assertion. So, yes, it is an assumption as far as that goes, but I feel it is a valid one given that the testimony supports it and nothing contradicts it.

As for the officers having a valid reason, I'm willing to allow that they might. They have not, to my knowledge, disclosed what that valid reason might be and I can't imagine what it could be, short of a security or safety reason which does not make sense given the officers' other actions.

Think of it less as a set of assumptions and more as a working hypothesis, subject to change as needed.

[RandFan]

Well, the only evidence we have at this point is Yearwood and his supporters saying he was in line and no one, as of this writing, is contradicting that assertion. So, yes, it is an assumption as far as that goes, but I feel it is a valid one given that the testimony supports it and nothing contradicts it.

As for the officers having a valid reason, I'm willing to allow that they might. They have not, to my knowledge, disclosed what that valid reason might be and I can't imagine what it could be, short of a security or safety reason which does not make sense given the officers' other actions.

Think of it less as a set of assumptions and more as a working hypothesis, subject to change as needed.I'll subscribe to it.

Good argument.

[Psi Baba]

I'm not sure we are looking at a man lunging to the right. There is an officer to Yearwood's right holding on to his arm as Yearwood suddenly jerks to the right.

If you look at his body posture, Yearwood appears to be pulling back to the left away from the door and the officer pulling on him (if that is what is happening). The two other cops grab him on his left side and push him down and to the right, toward the door. If he were lunging in that direction, those cops should have been leaning to the left to restrain him, I would think.


eta: Honestly, these kinds of handy-cam videos are so hard to parse, I'm not sure how anyone can conclude anything about a fast sequence of events from them.
Thank goodness. At least you, NobbyNobs, and fishbob paid close attention to the reverend's movements. He was walking to the left (presumably toward the exit or the back of the line, as instructed--assuming the wooden doors in the background are the entrance to the courtroom), and was pulled to the right by the cop(s) which turned him around. There was no lunge. No lunge at all. He didn't lunge.

BTW, no one has mentioned that near the end of the video, a woman was also arrested and was being escorted out, apparently for wearing a shirt with a subversive symbol on it. It seems that certain people were selectively being filtered out in advance and prevented from attending the hearing. Luckily, there were loads of witnesses; it'll all come out. But we all know whose testimonies will be the only ones that matter.

[c0rbin]

I'm not assuming it. I have been unable to discern any reason to make a person move to the back of a line like that and no reason has been given that I have been able to find. And that isn't from a lack of looking.


In the past, when I have been asked to step to the back of the line it was because I got out of line.

I do not know what the rules are, but I bet they are more strick in the Capitol than they are in the lunch line.

[JJR]

Arrest Bush not Rev!!! Woo hooo!!! I'm totally down. As in seriously. Bring down the evil POWER STRUCTURE!!!

Pooooower to the people!!

[WildCat]

I do not know what the rules are, but I bet they are more strick in the Capitol than they are in the lunch line.
My high school was so tough, the lunch ogres ladies could break your legs with their eyelashes!

[JJR]

My high school was so tough, the lunch ogres ladies could break your legs with their eyelashes!

My lunch ladies were Mexican Nazis. Today, they would be Dago Mob . . . a gang wherin Mexicans and Nazis work together. Indigenous to San Diego, California.

[RandFan]

BTW, no one has mentioned that near the end of the video, a woman was also arrested and was being escorted out, apparently for wearing a shirt with a subversive symbol on it. It seems that certain people were selectively being filtered out in advance and prevented from attending the hearing. Luckily, there were loads of witnesses; it'll all come out. But we all know whose testimonies will be the only ones that matter. Let's note that you are just asserting something. You are also making a number of unstated and unsubstantiated assumptions.

[GodMark2]

Well, the only evidence we have at this point is Yearwood and his supporters saying he was in line and no one, as of this writing, is contradicting that assertion. So, yes, it is an assumption as far as that goes, but I feel it is a valid one given that the testimony supports it and nothing contradicts it.

As for the officers having a valid reason, I'm willing to allow that they might. They have not, to my knowledge, disclosed what that valid reason might be and I can't imagine what it could be, short of a security or safety reason which does not make sense given the officers' other actions.

Think of it less as a set of assumptions and more as a working hypothesis, subject to change as needed.

I don't know about Washington DC, but in my home state, officers are specifically banned from making public statements about such matters, and the Police Department is legally restricted to only releasing the names and charges, to avoid poisoning the jury pool. So the fact that there have been no contradictions to Yearwood's position is expected, whether or not he is being completely factual. It often leads to a knee-jerk backlash against the officers in question, even when the facts of the incident eventually show that the civilian was without doubt violating the law.

That said, from the viewpoint of the second officer, we have a line of people with blue tickets for entry, proving that they were in the line, and a man trying to get in the middle of the line without such a ticket. If that officer were me, I would say 'Go to the end of the line so the people that have been waiting can get in first'. Policy states that people in line (shown by the blue ticket) have priority over people showing up later (not having a blue ticket). Yes, there is potential error in such a system, but it's not up to the officer to correct for those errors.

For the record, near the top of my list of least favorite people in the world are the ones that show up to a movie 5 minutes before the doors open and join their friend who has been waiting at the front of the line for six hours, because he was "saving their place". It's most annoying when one person somehow 'saves places' for about 200 of his friends and they take all the best seats in the theater, if not all the seats. If you want to get in first, wait six hours like the rest of us.