By Carlos Miller
A Pennsylvania man who questioned an off-duty state police officer about parking a pick-up truck in the fire lane of a grocery store ended up having cops follow him home, beating him up and arresting him on disorderly conduct charges.
Ron Doyle was also charged with DUI, but he said he didn’t drink until after he got home from the store. His blood-alcohol content level was .108, which is above the legal limit of .08.
Police say he was belligerent, insulting and took an “aggressive stance” when he opened the door.
He said they were the aggressive ones, kicking his door in when he did not open it immediately. He said they also tackled him to the floor where he ended up with several cuts to his face.
The truth may lie in a dispatch tape because Doyle dialed 911 after he saw three state police cars pull in front of his duplex. He kept an open phone line with the dispatcher during the entire exchange with police, according to the Chambersburg Public Opinion.
But Franklin County is refusing to release that tape because “the public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the interest in nondisclosure.”
In other words, the county is covering up for the state police officers, which is not surprising.
Hopefully, they get sued for withholding public records.
The police side of the story has already been contradicted by a pair of witnesses who observed the initial interaction in front of a local grocery store.
Jeremiah Snyder told Public Opinion Monday that narrative did not fit with what he saw as he and his wife walked out of Giant the afternoon of Jan. 10.
He said Doyle walked up to a truck parked in the fire lane, knocked on the truck’s window and said something to the man sitting in the driver’s seat about being parked in the fire lane.
He said the man flashed a badge and told Doyle the badge gave him the right to park there.
“My wife and I looked at each other, but kept walking,” he said.
He said Doyle did not appear to be drunk, “in any way, shape or form.”
He said he also did not hear Doyle swear or even raise his voice at the trooper during the encounter.
Doyle is a retired U.S. Marine who has worked as a civilian police officer on military bases. His preliminary hearing on the matter was postponed until Feb. 2.
Popularity: 37% [?]
Related posts:
- Arizona detention officer refuses to apologize for swiping court files (updated)
- Duane Kerzic takes on Secret Service, NJ parking authority in a single day
- Former NPPA president arrested and injured by “overly aggressive officer”
- iPhone video catches San Bernardino cops beating man (updated)
- “Then I was arrested and beat up by police Tuesday after photographing them against their wishes”
Support Photography is Not a Crime by buying your electronics through this ad.
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
thats about right…three pussy cops against one retired marine! oorah scumbags!
Oh man… are you going to follow this story? this appears to be a really egregious example of police misconduct – i can’t believe the non-disclosure of the tape. They’ll release the tape of an officer whose car went out of control while off duty, including the frantic prayers and screams as the car flew off the freeway and crashed at over 60 miles an hour… but won’t release this tape? Hello blue line. how are you today? quite well thank you.
i’m too tired to be enraged about this right now.
Get the real truth about this at our Website. This story is inaccurate. It is Franklin County that has refused to release the tape, not the Chambersburg Police Department. CPD had NOTHING to do with it. We have already appealed the county’s decision and are awaiting an decision from the state.
Also, this writer says Ron Doyle’s preliminary hearing has been postponed indefinately, and that is not true. My story, which he apparently where he got at least some of his information for this story, clearly says the hearing has been resceduled for Feb. 2.
See Public Opinion’s original stories on this case at http://www.publicopiniononline.com/search/ci_14185308?IADID=Search-www.publicopiniononline.com-www.publicopiniononline.com and http://www.publicopiniononline.com/search/ci_14226996?IADID=Search-www.publicopiniononline.com-www.publicopiniononline.com
Also, watch our Website for accurate updates.
Public Opinion’s Website is http://www.publiopiniononline.com
Tape released, or not I still do not see exigent circumstances for the entry into his home.
Taking up “an aggressive stance,” would still not be a viable reason for forced entry without a warrant.
I often take aggressive stances in my own home, because it makes me feel cool.
If a court allows the weak ass excuse that disorderly conduct is an exigent circumstance for entry into a castle (home), then the police state is further along then we have thought.
One thing the police have not thought of is that when a country becomes a police state, civilian police forces eventually become targets of the governments real police force. We know them as the military.
This one needs to be tracked. It’s as flagrant a case of an arrest being made for “contempt of cop” and no other reason as I can recall seeing, coupled with an obvious “blue wall”.
Track it at http://www.publiopiniononline.com for the real story.
Page wont load Vicky sorry check your link…..
I agree that this is definitely contempt of cop….. however, nothing will happen. It will get swept under the rug. Withholding the tape just shows they have something to hide. Isn’t that the cops excuse when you don’t give them permission to search?
mepsipax´s last blog ..I am a comment whore
C’mon, Johnny. We all know you can do it.
there’s an update out there
click my name above – silly me for not anticipating how that would work
This sounds like a cheap porno: Hot Cop On Cop Action!
Ridiculous. Talk about above the law, better than thou.
Conservatives are worried about Big Government in the form of health care reform? What about the freaking police state we are living in?
My god…
HEIL HITLER
C’mon guys. This is heavily slanted story that wasn’t even posted in a real news site. So since the guy is claiming he didn’t do anything wrong (big surprise there), it means it’s contempt of cop? Give me a break.
The failure to release the taps is pretty standard since the case is ongoing. It will come out at trial and be public record at that point. Why don’t you save the chest beating for when that actually happens?
As for exigent circumstances, if the guy ran inside when the police showed up, they can enter because they are in “hot pursuit”. If that didn’t happen then all they would have done was knock and knock before finally leaving and getting an arrest warrant for the guy. However since he opened the door, they were able to arrest him.
Who knows about his level of intoxication and the facts of the incident? Just because this guy denies everything doesn’t make him an innocent victim. I’d like to see the arrest report because we don’t really have enough information to make that determination. At least I personally don’t have enough. You folks don’t seem to need any info be able to condemn the police though.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Reader Mail – Miranda and Real Life
@JohnnyLaw
“Just because this guy denies everything doesn’t make him an innocent victim.”
Fixed it for you:
“Just because this guy denies everything doesn’t make him a victim.”
In point of fact, he is, and will remain, innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Here we go again.
“Johnny Law” spouting the same old pablum, ie:
“The Police can do no wrong!”
Rail Car Fan
Wow, you must be a cop hater, Johnny, since the guy that was beat up was a former cop…
And also a Marnie, which is obviously proof that JL hates soldiers.
Why do you hate our military JL? Why do you hate America?
Not a real news site? The Chambersburg Public Opinion has only been around since 1869.
Since 1869 when the first edition came off a flatbed press in a Main Street building in downtown Chambersburg Public Opinion has been a part of life in the Cumberland Valley, and the county s most comprehensive source of local news and information.
Public Opinion began as a weekly newspaper and then became a daily first published in the morning, and in 1921 it became an afternoon paper. By 1931, Public Opinion had bought two other newspapers with long histories in Franklin County, The Franklin Repository and Valley Spirit.
Founded by M.A. Foltz, Public Opinion remained in the Foltz family until 1964, when it was purchased by McClure Newspapers.
In 1971, Public Opinion became the 27th newspaper owned by Gannett Co. Inc., which publishes USA TODAY and the weekly newspaper magazine USA WEEKEND. The latter is an insert in Public Opinion on Sundays.
Public Opinion again became a morning newspaper in 2005, the same year that MediaNews Group Inc. took over ownership as the newspaper s majority partner.
The MediaNews-Gannett partnership includes three other south central Pennsylvania newspapers: the York Daily Record and York Sunday News, Lebanon Daily News, and The Evening Sun of Hanover.
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/aboutus
It is truly amazing how JL gets owned so repeatedly and consistently, and in ways that are so easily avoidable.
He couldn’t figure out that the Public Opinion is a legit news source? With a craptastic investigative mind like that, one has to wonder what the police department he works for is paying him for.
I guess I am just a glutton for punishment!
Huh, so you really can get my emails.
Johnny Law, if the story was bullshit and not from a real news site I wouldn’t have wasted Carlos’ time with it.
Jake Stichler´s last blog ..Cracking Down on Spending
Hell yeah! Thanks for the tip!
@ Johnny Law.. How many times do police tell us that if we didn’t do anything wrong then we should have nothing to fear from random searches, surveillance cameras, etc.
Well sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – What are the police hiding or covering up by refusing to release the tape? If the police didn’t do anything wrong then they should have nothing to hide…
Jim,
The tapes will be available after the case has run it’s court. It’s evidence my man. Just wait a little while until this guy has his day in court.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Reader Mail – Miranda and Real Life
Carlos,
replies like that of Johnny Law reinforce my conclusion that citizens persecuted by police must seek monetary damages *from the specific police people involved*.
Johnny says that we ought suspend (at least final) judgement until we have all the data. Even when the evidence presently at hand seems sufficient, I see no way that Johnny is not correct.
But his correctness hides the problem. What’s it gonna cost Ron Doyle to have the day in court that Johnny enjoins? The law, supported by the muscle of the state, must work to make the victim recompensed. If actually a victim, Ron should get recompensed for all expenses, including those involved in getting redress of grievances via the court system.
And it ought not be the police system alone that bears the cost, helpful tho that is. The individual police should bear costs since they willfully, consciously chose to do what they knew to be wrong, unlawful, illegal, criminal (adjectives with technical meaning baggage, but apply nonetheless). Only when the word gets around that acting stupidly while playing police person does not insulate one from consequences will such behavior slow down. (It will never stop, any more than other sorts of meanness stops just because it is not lawful and even punished. But it will slow down.)
There are already methods of suing officers if shown they acted improperly. However if you start suing officers and winning every time there is a not guilty verdict, you will end up with police who will never bother to take any enforcement action out of fear of litigation. That is why police usually get qualified immunity.
Sometimes a person gets found not guilty. Great for them. It doesn’t mean that the police acted improperly. It simply means the jury or judge thought there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. This does not equate to wrongdoing on the part of the police.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Learning to De-escalate
Johnny (and LawReport.org):
No one debates that such methods exist, Johnny . Neither, I hope, would any disagree with the reasoning that leads to the qualified immunity concept.
But qualified means something other than absolute. It means (iirc the terms) one can “pierce the veil” of such immunity of someone “working under cover of law”.
So I totally agree that a verdict of innocence (better imo than “not guilty”) does not in and of itself mean improper behavior by officials (=officers, and, btw, prosecutors and judges).
However, what about cases where said officials openly and willfully did something they very clearly should have known not to do?
I claim the response obvious: they should personally bear some of the costs. (Why I think Carlos should go for money from the officers, maybe even the prosecutor and judge, in his case, tho they’re much, much harder to get at. The latter two should have *reflexively* thrown out the case against Carlos.)
BTW, I don’t think any of said officials should have the ’shirts off their backs sued from them’, nor that they should be immediately removed from office. I think the system as a whole should bear Carlos’ defense costs, with one (or more) of the officials involved personally paying for part of that expense. Carlos’ costs = not only directly documentable expenses such as photocopying or lawyer bills, but also his pro se time (pro rated at, eg, the value of his professional time lost).
If Carlos (or any person in similar situation) wins something like this, the message will get thru. Don’t do stupid stuff. You’ll be responsible. Personally. There’s a web available support group out there that quickly makes pro se dummies into expert lawyers. Those folks will make a cottage industry (= make their living which otherwise they’d lose defending themselves) out of going after you.
This is the operant phrase for qualified immunity: “protects government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)
Even in this seemingly clear definition, it’s amazing how many angels dance on the head of a pin (judicial interpretation of circumstances). The following blog http://www.section1983blog.com is worth following as to how convoluted judicial thinking can be to err on the side of the officer or prosecutor (who have essentially been given de facto absolute immunity).
I agree wholeheartedly with qualified immunity. But I also agree with the following by Roy Kerns: “However, what about cases where said officials openly and willfully did something they very clearly should have known not to do?
I claim the response obvious: they should personally bear some of the costs. ” Not collect trial OT, then suspension pay, and then move to another jurisdiction. When you knowingly harm someone, you are civilly libel for damages.
But, unfortunately, there is common sense decency, the Law, and the System. They are not one and the same.
And many times people are found guilty when police acted improperly because they lie on the report and lie on the witness stand.
Pretty obvious the cops followed this man to his house to teach him a lesson that cops are god, and the ex marine never should have questioned a god.
What say you to that JL?
Guy should have never opened the door (or answered the door) to the police.
It sounds like he didn’t. I got the impression from the article they forced entry (without a warrant none the less).
I suspect that I can state JL’s opinion: The actions of cops are always, always, always justified, unless every last shred of evidence is in and it proves absolutely that the cop in question broke the law and violated the victim’s rights grieviously, in which case the victim must pay huge court costs, and the cop should at most be fired and have to get a job in a different police department.
Johnny, if you don’t like that little digest, you might want to think about how you’re coming across to your fellow civilians, because I daresay there are others here who hold similar opinions regarding you. Not because you’re a cop, but because you bend over backwards to defend almost any violation of law and public trust, so long as the criminal is pretending to be performing police business.
Where is it written that Fire Zones don’t apply to off-duty cops, anyway?
Where was the warrant to break this guy’s door down, anyway, or waas it something else the cops on the scene made up, like his “aggressive stance”? “You see, Your Honor, the guy frightened us with his scary way of standing, so we had to break down his door, rough him up, and haul him off to jail”. Pah!
The scary part of JL’s stance is that he can’t even see a problem with his “Citizens are guilty from the moment of arrest, even if the arrest is bogus, while cops are always innocent until conviction, and sometimes even after it” attitude.
Rest asssured that the WHOLE truth of this will never come out, because cops like JL will cover up any evidence exposing corruption on their part. There is a long history of LEOs being run out of PDs by cops who don’t like it when the law is upheld at the cost of a crooked cop’s career.
The biggest reasons I distrust cops in general are: The cops who break the law, and cops like JL, who defend them.
Johnny Law:
I’m with you in the basic point that we only have one side of the story…somewhat. However, the only info we have thus far from the police is contradicted by the uninvolved witnesses. If their story is true, there’s no basis for the off-duty cop to have called his buddies.
Furthermore, you’ve misstated a few things. “As for exigent circumstances, if the guy ran inside when the police showed up, they can enter because they are in “hot pursuit”. If that didn’t happen then all they would have done was knock and knock before finally leaving and getting an arrest warrant for the guy. However since he opened the door, they were able to arrest him.”
That’s an incorrect statement of the law…if he was on his own property and the police arrived and he ran into his house, it doesn’t become hot pursuit. And we know that’s not the sequence of events, as he had time to get 9/11 on the phone prior to the forced entry by the police. We’ll see, as you say, we don’t know the contents of the 9/11 tape. On that point, it should be released because its public release doesn’t compromise the case and does increase transparency and public faith in the system.
Assuming for the moment that his story is completely true, that is, he points out, correctly, that a cop isn’t above the law, the cop gets mad and gets his co-cops to hassle him without justification, he should be sued. Not necessarily the cops who arrested him, though. If off-duty guy says, “He was drunk and drove off weaving and shouting threats!!!” then the guys who arrested him are unlikely to be outside the scope of their duties, and hence, immune. Off-duty boy, though, is in trouble. And should be. Assuming Doyle’s story is purely true.
Oh, and Nemo, still awaiting that apology.
Why does Nemo owe you an apology?
http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/22/one-down-one-to-go/#comments
Take a look at Nemo’s comments there, and you’ll see. He was both inaccurate AND wrong, wrong, wrong. Ad hominem attacks, and general ass-hattery, and when proven wrong, he disappears. I’ll hold my breath for someone like him to admit he was wrong, though.
I commited the factual error of forgetting that Carlos got a jury trial, sure. So?
The logic of my first response is as follows: CM was given unlawful orders (IIRC it was more than one). Since the order was unlawful, it wasn’t anything more than the whim of the cop, unsupported by a shred of law. For failing to obey this whim, CM was deprived of his freedom. IOW, the cops cannot just boss the citizenry around. They need a legal basis for doing so. Is it that hard to follow?
You seemed to me to be attempting to (mis)apply law in support of the cops’ “right”, in Carlos’ case, to boss him around and then arrest him for not violating the law. Your example of a 5-man fight, as (un)related to CM’s incident still strikes me as inapplicable.
In response to me stating my opinion, you opined: “Nemo, I can only assume you have a limited ability to read and comprehend. ” In short, the insult direct, and general asshattery.
Once you insulted me, I felt no reason to be polite to you.
Your inability to follow a chain of logic doesn’t bear on my reading and comprehension skills.
I’ll apologize after you do.
Your simply an ass. Here are your quotes:
“@Torg
In short, the cops can deprive you of your freedom /on a whim/, and you and JL support the action, IMO. And again IMO, you and JL support the cops’ right to do so /without a shred of supporting law/, and without retribution, as well. ”
“Or, in short, why do you seem to believe that when you are being arrested under an utterly BS excuse, you have forfeited your 1st amendment rights. Explain that, please, Torg.”
“From what I have read from you, you appear to hold the opinion (as far as I can tell, since you didn’t make your stance explicit, thus my adding IMO (in my opinion, to noobs) to my comments) that Carlos could, or possibly /should/ be found guilty for opening his mouth in any way when being arrested under BS charges. In short, when the police abuse their authority, you seem to hold the opinion that Citizens should shut up and obey.”
These statements are now and were then the complete opposite of the positions I took in the thread. You didn’t bother to read it, you just leapt to a conclusion. And you were an ass about it. Here, let me post the quotes again, from that thread, from which you drew these conclusions, but you still can’t admit you were wrong. I note you never responded, again, to the substance of any of this. Here’s my apology: I’m sorry you can’t read.
‘”Carlos: let me clarify something for you. First, I think your initial arrest was incorrect, and I am not taking the side of the police. However, as a matter of law, you are incorrect about resisting arrest.” and “There was nothing inconsistent about your verdicts. You may well have NOT resisted, but if you had, it’s not inconsistent with an acquittal of the underlying crime.”
From my second post here: “Resisting, with or without violence, is illegal (some places). If, as you propose, the arrest was unlawful, then even some physical violence could be permitted. Police have to be acting within the color of the law to have immunity.”
From my fourth or fifth post: “I think you have a strong’ish case that they did not have reasonable suspicion. I think you are actually innocent. I do not think it was an inconsistent verdict, the only point I’m making here.”
Torg: “Your simply an ass. ”
You lead with an ad hominem, so there’s no point in furthering a discussion with you at this time.
Yeah, I’m not holding my breath waiting for you to admit you were wrong.
You’re the johnny law of the other side of the issue.
parking a pick-up truck in the fire lane of a grocery store – isn’t that something a terrorist might do?
enhager´s last blog ..nastykmillitary became a registered member
Only if he had a camera
HAHA!
It would be the logical place to park, but who the hell is gonna blow up a Giant in Chambersburg?
Jake Stichler´s last blog ..Cracking Down on Spending
Sounds similar to something that happened to my father in Tennessee.
Johnny Law: You might want to read the original article about this, not just the one linked by Carlos.
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci_14185308?source=most_viewed
Here’s a pertinent part:
When Doyle saw three state police cars pull in behind his duplex, he gathered up his dogs and got them upstairs so he could confine them to a front bedroom. When the troopers began knocking on the window of his newly installed back door, the female dog gave Doyle a bit of a hard time about moving away from the knocking instead of toward it, but when he commanded her and the male to go up to the bedroom, they went.
As Doyle came down the stairs, he called 911 and asked for borough police assistance.
“I told them I needed borough cops at my place, that state police were yelling I was under arrest and I didn’t even do anything,” Doyle told Public Opinion.
By the time Doyle got back to his kitchen door, he said the officers were pounding on the door and yelling at him that he was under arrest for disorderly conduct.
Wait for it…. those are only civilians (In JL voice) … they can’t be trusted. The cops are the official story. You can’t believe what they said. Where is the evidence. You are always hating on cops. Blah Blah Blah. When the evidence is against the cops it is never released. However, they sure are happy to take those paid vacations.
mepsipax´s last blog ..I am a comment whore
I have read information about this story from http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci_14185308?source=most_viewed and I have some serious questions for the police.
1) If the guy did what they say he did at the store why didn’t that cop arrest him there? He flashed the badge and at that moment it became “official” even if he was off duty. The kid doesn’t play in because of that. If the cop thought things were serious enough to show the badge then it was game on.
2) The forced entry was a planned take down. This accusation of “… an aggressive stance …” is getting old. It was used on the poor lad at the Jets-Chargers game last weekend. It was claimed he showed “… an aggressive first…” Every now and then the cops come up with some cleaver catch-all phrase to sound really bad and then ride it for all they can as reason to arrest people.
3) I think the victim got a little mouthy at the store but not too bad and the cop was embarrassed in front of his kid. You have to know that had the victim gotten aggressive the cop probably would have defended his kid so since there is no mention of any of that you can be assured the victim was fairly cool about whatever he said and did. The cop was just plain and simply embarrassed in front of his kid and abused his authority. Put another way – the cop is lying.
4) The cop at the scene apparently makes no mention of alcohol instead accusing the victim of disorderly conduct. Presumably after they made contact with him in his house they decide to charge him with DUI – based on what I can’t imagine. Two witnesses at the store support the victim and say they were in close proximity to him and in no way did he appear drunk.
The cops are a bunch of thugs not unlike those who worked for the likes of Al Capone or John Gotti.
Roy Kerns:
I fully support your comments about holding the police personally responsible for their actions. As long as the police can run a muck with little fear of retribution they will because the hiring process for police officers is so fatally flawed that any red neck brute can pass and get hired as long as he has a clean record. This kind of mentality knows no bounds if they think no one is looking or that no one cares and will do anything about it. It is now to the point that they know full well we are looking (video) and they just don’t care. They go ahead and commit crimes right on video and then tell us we are not seeing what we are seeing. We must be stupid. They will tell us what to see.
I have been with you Roy for a long time on this one but I have a few additional thoughts: we need a new classification of verdict in this legal system of ours. We have guilty, not guilty. Lets add a fourth and call it innocent. Here is how it works: if the jury finds that there is just no way the defendant committed the crime they can be found innocent. Being found innocent means they state must put the victim’s life back together as it was no matter the cost.
In addition the victim should have a slam dunk case for damages and be illegible to receive millions depending on the circumstances and no crooked judge has the power to stop it.
Furthermore in the event of a verdict of innocent there would be an automatic investigation concerning the facts as presented to the court to find out how things could have been so wrong. This should ultimately lead to charges against those who were over zealous and heavy handed.
In addition the arresting agency charged with paying damages should access a significant portion of the award to the offending parties such as cops. They must have a stake in what happens or they simply will not care. If the insurance companies pay the bill why should they care.
I also think we should pass national legislation that prevents cops from retiring while under a cloud of suspicion. Frequently cops get caught and just retire to make things go away. I also think that if a retired cop is later charged with crimes committed while in service they should have their pensions revoked upon conviction after all – had they been caught at the time they probably would have been fired and never reached retirement. In other words they got their retirement through deceit because the whole time they were just a criminal hiding in the uniform. Why should we pay such a person’s retirement? It is nonsense.
Why are complaints against the police considered personnel matters? I think they should be criminal complaints. Hiding them in a filing cabinet as a personnel matter keeps the public from finding out what is really going on. You can go to http://www.LawReport.org and signup and record your police complaint. You can also record a complaint against an attorney or judge. Soon you will be able to file a complaint against political figures. These files are for our database to help make public such complaints. You should still follow through with normal channels because I do not do that for you but giving me a copy of it makes the record public so others can see. The police do not want that.
Visit my site and have some fun.
JL actually did make one correct point – The evidence will come out in court. However I doubt the DA will drive this forward because that will do exactly what they don’t want to happen – the release of the 911 recording. The public outrage that would cause will completely destroy what’s left of any trust in the police. They’ll hold this up with delay after delay hoping to sweep this under the rug and pretend nothing has happened.
One thing I always see though in the settlements in similar civil cases is that the defendant gets to admit no wrong. I hope Doyle doesn’t just ‘settle’ but instead take it to the very end and demand that the officers involved loose their LEO certification as part of the package and individually sue the officers back into the stone age.
I think if the 9-11 tape supports Doyle, you’re right, we’ll never hear it, and the charges will disappear.
The possible 4th amendment violations by the arresting officers, combined with the improper action by the illegally parked policeman will likely lead to some settlement by the police. Doyle will be in a tough position, take the settlement and the “apology” or an extended law suit, with the real likelihood of on-going harassment while it works its way out.
The local newspaper being involved is Doyle’s greatest asset.
Hope the defendant’s counsel knows how to file a speedy trial motion.
Taking an aggressive stance when 3 armed men show up at your front door, obviously looking for trouble. Imagine that!
Interesting point – I’ll take it a few further.
When you do nothing wrong and are then confronted by 2 or more people that are trying to bully/threaten you, what do you do?
You go defensive – Your hard wired fight or flee instinct kicks in. You instinctively position yourself to either run away or defend from the imminent threat.
I’m willing to bet cops use this psychology to their advantage. “Suspect became defensive and posed a threat to our safety” is the only excuse they need to beat the shit out of, spray you with chemicals, tazer, rape with foreign object, kill, I mean – arrest you.
Workingindust´s last blog ..C-17 taking off at Kandahar Airfield
And ultimately charge you with resisting arrest among other things
The fact the government is not releasing the tape definitely means there is something on that tape the government doesn’t want the public to hear. Otherwise, it would have been released.
This guy needs to get an attorney and have that tape released.
How long before they arrest and beat up everyone here writing in their opinions?
Well I was already convicted for writing my opinion here. Fortunately, I ended up reversing the conviction on appeal.
In the appellate court’s own words, my blog was used against me.
http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/22/one-down-one-to-go/
People who believe the cops are always right should move to communist China, where their views are held as law. In this country you have a right to resist unlawful arrest – meaning capricious arrest made from vindictive charges – with all means necessary. Google it if you don’t thinks so. Those troopers should be glad they live in the U.S. and not Pakistan, where people would have wiped them out with an AK without batting an eye. Why is it the third world respects individual rights more than the POS-police lovers here?
Bang! Stop or I’ll shoot!
That’s how they do it these days.
Also, the newest illegality; bad attitude.
It’s now illegal to have a “bad attitude.”
I agree with A. Magnus.
How long before we the people adopt our own new rule?
You know, when I see you (the cops) I’m just going to start shooting and consider it self defense.
is it “ka-ching” or “cha-ching” when the state’s cash register opens and pays out a 5-figure settlement for abuse of power by public employees?
i always thought cha-ching sounded better, but ka-ching has a nice ring to it also.