Protect and Serve “my a$$!” The only thing the “criminals with badges” want to protect and serve is THEMSELVES!

In regard to your latest posting, there’s some problems with your reasoning and conclusions.

First, the license plates in this case were decorations that were bolted to the wall. Unless new evidence has come to light, they weren’t for sale. Therefore, the statement that the store was “selling license plates” appears to be incorrect. The fact that it isn’t a “secretary of state building” isn’t relevant.

Some of the plates had price tags on them, but the price tags were apparently attached by the previous owners. The fact that the plates were bolted to the wall demonstrates that the store in question wasn’t treating them as commodities.

The store will probably be forced to pay a fine for selling “illegal” plates, if it hasn’t already done so, but that’ll happen because the city is embarrassed by the whole thing and needs to sweep it at least partway under the rug. Opinion, not proven fact.

There’s a related point that might increase the city’s embarrassment level. If I remember correctly, there’s a non-Latino restaurant in the area which displays similar license plates in a similar way. The police have never raided the restaurant or even suggested that there’s anything wrong with the restaurant’s plates.

Second, the police parked outside the store in question on a regular basis and intercepted shoppers who had Latino facial features. Whites didn’t receive the same treatment. Fact, not opinion. That’s the literal definition of discrimination. Therefore, the statement that “this wasn’t harassment by the police” is also incorrect. However, there’s one point that isn’t clear. Police actions outside the store were certainly harassment. Police actions inside the store were probably harassment, but to establish this as fact, as opposed to opinion, we’d need to show that some of the same officers were involved or that the two groups had similar agendas.

Third, Father Manship wasn’t “sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong”. I’ve read about this kind of thing for many years, and if it isn’t possible to “dirty up” a victim, people will usually say that they were “asking for it”, or that they were “looking for trouble”, or the weakest argument of all, they were “sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong”.

What does that even mean? It sounds exactly like the kind of thing that the Ku Klux Klan said about civil rights investigators in the 1960s. No, I’m not suggesting that you have anything in common with those people but the language. However, it is
the same language.

The officers in this case committed at least one criminal offense (falsifying a police report), and possibly a second one (harassment based on ethnicity, which I believe could be prosecuted at both state and federal levels if you’re able to position it as an attempt to deprive the victim of civil rights). Father Manship, on the other hand, committed no crimes at all.

This isn’t a matter of opinion, except for the second of the two crimes committed by the officers (harassment). The falsification of a police report and Manship’s innocence are simple facts. If you disagree with any of these points, it should be possible to prove or disprove them. That’s important. Debate things that can be proven or disproven. It’s not useful to state points as nebulous as somebody’s “nose” is somewhere “where it doesn’t belong”. It’s also a bad idea to use language that might allow your opponents to characterize you as unintelligent or as a Ku Klux Klan member.

Finally, some people who’ve commented on this case in this forum and in other forums have said that the store owners were “illegals” or “wetbacks” and that Father Manship was somehow committing a mysteriously unspecified crime because he was “helping wetbacks”. In some cases, those people are simply trolls. In other cases, they’re irrational and possibly dangerous. I’ll note that your posting includes nothing of this type. You appear to be rational. You’ve made some incorrect statements, but if you minimize pointless handwaving (the “nose” thing) and emphasize points that can be proven or disproven, you might accomplish something.

That is your goal, since you don’t appear to be a troll or one of the irrational people.

By the way, I’ve answered most or all of the questions that you asked me on the Pataky thread. Additionally, another poster was kind enough to locate the District Attorney’s report on the one case that I couldn’t identify. I’ve posted more details about that case.

Well at least you’re somewhat back on the subject.

They weren’t selling license plates. http://newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/03/new_haven_pries_1.php
At the time of his arrest, Manship was videotaping East Haven police in the process of removing license plates from a wall at the rear of My County Store. Wilfred Matute, the owner of the store, said that the plates were simply decorative. Matute said that he was told by police that his possession of the plates was illegal and that they would have to be removed.

You see license plates screwed to walls of places like this all the time. Because the owner happened to be Latino the officers decided to elevate this and harass the owner of the store.

They also harassed Manship. If the police are making an arrest it’s a newswothy event. They were making this guy take down the plates with an electric screw driver.

This wasn’t harassment by the police or as you like to say Duane “a newsworthy event” so there was no reason to show up with a video camera. I think this priest has bigger fish to fry if he want’s to go on a video crusade.

When Priest cover up I complain.

When Cops cover up I complain.

This however is a story about a priest with a camera taking video of the police. It’s about how the police violated his first amendment rights. It’s about how after they did that they lied about it.

It’s not about priests covering up.

Please stick to the subjects at hand. Your posts are getting distracting.

It is a sworn statement, after all.