Woman illegally arrested police...

[YoUDeeMan]

Use a banjo go to jail. Fortunately it wasn't a five string....








Damn shame the way these union pigs treat the very veterans who make it possible for us to sleep safely every night in 'merica.

Union pigs? I see you woke up with a sliver of intelligence this morning. Hang on to that ray of sunshine...there's hope for you yet.

[Ibanez]

I watched that video. And you can't really hear the conversation between Emily and the Park Rangers because the guy filming won't shut up. Anyway, from the video it looks like a woman was arrested for no reason. Conveniently, there isn't any video of what caused the Park Rangers to show up. Did you count the number of officers that were there for 1 person? What was she doing before hand? Was there a sign that said, "Stay off the Grass" or "stay out of the flower bed"? Anything like that? Silly I know, but if she was asked to move and started giving them shit, then what did she expect to happen? Was she causing problems during and after the protest? I think in the video it's noted that she says something about "peaceful assembly". Most municipalities have laws that require you get a permit to protest or assemble in a large group, as she was probably in, while on public grounds. I don't know, but there are all very good questions. You guys have jumped to conclusions. You see what happens 1 minute before the arrest but nothing in the 10-20 minutes prior? We know police don't respond quickly, so what was happening?

[YoUDeeMan]

A more important question is why are these protesters really ugly people these days? The protester in the video looks as though she was hit in the face repeatedly with that banjo...although the banjo looks to be in good shape.

You rarely see a protester these days that makes you want to join her for a romp in the park. In the sixties, there were some gorgeous protesters (although they might not have bathed in a while).

Do you think social media has had an impact on the quality of protesters?

[89Hen]

You and I are on COMPLETE opposite sides on this...
A peaceful citizen should ALWAYS be dealt with peacefully in turn (ALWAYS) as a mandatory RULE
Anything other than that is a runaway police force in my opinion

Peacefulness = Peacefulness / Always
any other formula is straight up bullsh!t
They should have simply stood their (period) and that's all (Period)
She was harmless and peaceful

What if she had an accordian? How about a bullhorn? The fact that you have said ALWAYS twice, it would seem you see this as a black and white issue. That's a dangerous stance Cleets.

As always with these videos, I'm sure more going on here that presented on a camera phone. It would appear that she was by herself in an area where everyone else was on the other side of a fence/bushes. Perhaps there was a peaceful, organized gathering that was allowed in one area of the park, but maybe that wasn't good enough for her. As others have said, it seems she may have gotten what she was looking for.

BTW, I like your generalization of "conservatives".... I can only assume that you are suggesting that the cops are conservatives and anyone who sides with them, and the crowd on this video who sides with you were liberals? Didn't I hear one of the "liberals" yell "Fucking homo" at the cops?

[89Hen]

BTW, I like your generalization of "conservatives".... I can only assume that you are suggesting that the cops are conservatives and anyone who sides with them, and the crowd on this video who sides with you were liberals? Didn't I hear one of the "liberals" yell "Fucking homo" at the cops?

I guess you're not alone. Tried to find more reports on this and one of the only ones that showed up was from The Examiner which has the story under:

News▻ Politics▻ Republican

[CID1990]

I bet she smelled like petruli oil.

[Ibanez]

I bet she smelled like petruli oil.

Patchouli?

[houndawg]

You and I are on COMPLETE opposite sides on this...
A peaceful citizen should ALWAYS be dealt with peacefully in turn (ALWAYS) as a mandatory RULE
Anything other than that is a runaway police force in my opinion

Peacefulness = Peacefulness / Always
any other formula is straight up bullsh!t
They should have simply stood their (period) and that's all (Period)
She was harmless and peaceful

What if she had an accordian? How about a bullhorn? The fact that you have said ALWAYS twice, it would seem you see this as a black and white issue. That's a dangerous stance Cleets.

As always with these videos, I'm sure more going on here that presented on a camera phone. It would appear that she was by herself in an area where everyone else was on the other side of a fence/bushes. Perhaps there was a peaceful, organized gathering that was allowed in one area of the park, but maybe that wasn't good enough for her. As others have said, it seems she may have gotten what she was looking for.

BTW, I like your generalization of "conservatives".... I can only assume that you are suggesting that the cops are conservatives and anyone who sides with them, and the crowd on this video who sides with you were liberals? Didn't I hear one of the "liberals" yell "**** homo" at the cops?

Zero tolerance is the only policy for accordions.

[CID1990]

I bet she smelled like petruli oil.

Patchouli?

Yes that would be the other common spelling

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=petruli" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

Patchouli?

Yes that would be the other common spelling

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=petruli" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or it's actual name since "petruli" doesn't exist.

[Chizzang]

IF she was wrong, she was wrong like speeding is wrong. Or do cops no longer have any discretion?

With public complaints, the age of digital video, and mandatory arrest laws? They have very little discretion anymore.

First off I've seen Redmond police completely ignore mandatory arrest laws...
just flat out IGNORE them / because it was the right thing to do

Secondly shouldn't we want qualified police officers
who are capable of deciding "The dangers" in play at any given moment..?
Or are COPs now just crappy union workers without a brain to apply common sense

This concerns me...

From the TSA sure I get it / Brainless monkeys / A plus B = C only & everytime & always
From COP's there's no excuse / Be a thinking mans Public Servant

[89Hen]

First off I've seen Redmond police completely ignore mandatory arrest laws...
just flat out IGNORE them / because it was the right thing to do

Secondly shouldn't we want qualified police officers
who are capable of deciding "The dangers" in play at any given moment..?
Or are COPs now just crappy union workers without a brain to apply common sense

This concerns me...

What concerns me is you thinking laws are written to be interpreted by police officers on a case by case basis.

[Chizzang]

First off I've seen Redmond police completely ignore mandatory arrest laws...
just flat out IGNORE them / because it was the right thing to do

Secondly shouldn't we want qualified police officers
who are capable of deciding "The dangers" in play at any given moment..?
Or are COPs now just crappy union workers without a brain to apply common sense

This concerns me...

What concerns me is you thinking laws are written to be interpreted by police officers on a case by case basis.

Traffic cops do that ALL DAY LONG

But I see where you're getting tripped up...
However I deal with both the TSA and regular old police officers fairly regularly
The TSA is populated with mindless drones
Completely incapable of dragging two brain cells together and completing a coherent thought
They are former fast food employees that landed federal Jobs
A bloated and failed organization

contrast:
Ron Gibson the local Redmond chief of Police is a spectacular human being
who urges his officers to honor the citizens of Redmond
Above all else when considering each situation

His officers THINK before they ACT
meaning frequently they carry out "non-action" as their primary form of interaction...

This is how it should be...
Just like traffic cops do (all day long)

[89Hen]

contrast:
Ron Gibson the local Redmond chief of Police is a spectacular human being
who urges his officers to honor the citizens of Redmond
Above all else when considering each situation

His officers THINK before they ACT
meaning frequently they carry out "non-action" as their primary form of interaction...

This is how it should be...
Just like traffic cops do (all day long)

That sounds great, but I guess I'd like to know what mandatory arrest laws you think are OK for a cop to look the other way. Are we talking about an open container in your front yard?

[Chizzang]

contrast:
Ron Gibson the local Redmond chief of Police is a spectacular human being
who urges his officers to honor the citizens of Redmond
Above all else when considering each situation

His officers THINK before they ACT
meaning frequently they carry out "non-action" as their primary form of interaction...

This is how it should be...
Just like traffic cops do (all day long)

That sounds great, but I guess I'd like to know what mandatory arrest laws you think are OK for a cop to look the other way. Are we talking about an open container in your front yard?

Well that's a long answer but suffice to say:
County and City Police FIRST need to actually understand the laws that are mandatory arrest
1) Domestic violence
2) Driving while under the influence (Washington State claims to have the toughest in the Nation)

All others on the books for King County and Seattle are ignored...
There are no Mandatory arrest laws related to City or National parks according to my Lawyer friends who have examined the video in question and said: That would NEVER happen in King County

[Chizzang]

Okay here it is:
In America there is no history of officers being held liable for NOT executing the letter of the law / thus / limiting governmental liability for the acts of its agents... etc.

Note:
Gradually, the public duty doctrine took its present form as a method of limiting state liability to a particular person resulting from a general duty owed to the public... officers are free to take no action based on the most common interpretation of Active Law.

Case history in the U.S. has always sided with the officers ability to asses and decline intervention...
Note: ALWAYS

There are but few laws held sacred above the officers right to access the situation and domestic violence seems to be the ONLY exception
.......................................................................

So standing in a public park with a Banjo / The Police have no obligation to arrest
Nor is there ANY historical case where the officer was reprimanded for taking no action

Please feel free to read that ^ again

A common reference case for Officer immunity is here:
In Jones v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, the Court of Special Appeals in 1990 affirmed a judgment of no law enforcement officer liability in facts similar to those of Ashburn.(73) An officer of the Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission witnessed a minor automobile accident, and asked the driver who caused the accident to park her car and turn the ignition off.(74) While the state officer was calling the accident in, the car sped off and was involved in a second accident, crashing head-on with a second automobile driven by Jones.(75) Here, although the state officer had authority to use police powers in an emergency, the act of directing the driver to park the car was not "taking charge" of that person or taking that person into custody.(76) Similar to Bradshaw, Ashburn, and Boyer,(77) the Court of Special Appeals held that Maryland police officers are public officials and when acting "within the scope of their law enforcement function are clearly acting in a discretionary capacity."(78) When acting in a discretionary manner, the court found that the law enforcement officer has the "public official immunity" described in Bradshaw, and there is no need for the court to determine if a special relationship between the law enforcement officer and the victim exists.(79)

[Chizzang]

Okay Cluck Welcome to AMERICA...
Those police officers were under NO OBLIGATION what-so-ever to arrest that woman
There is complete legal historical immunity of officers in cases such as that where NO ACTION is completely acceptable and common...

In Cases where there is no immanent danger (Domestic Violence is the exception)
There has never been a case in the US where an officer was held liable for NO ACTION
They are in effect Immune to prosecution (for no action)



Please find a case in the US that contradicts these finding
That is not an immanent danger case / and good luck
I'm interested to see what you come up with...

I look forward to being corrected on this

[blueballs]

That's a good looking banjo. Hope it wasn't damaged.

Only an App State fan would notice the banjo....

[JohnStOnge]

I don't argue that point...but when a law enforcement officer tells you you have to move...you have two choices...do it, or eventually get what she got...

And therein lies the rub. I don't think agents of the State should be able to order citizens around like that. I realize that principle complicates things. But tough. We allow law enforcement officers way too much latitude. A citizen of the United States should not be required to automatically comply with anything an agent of the State...a law enforcement officer in this case...says without any kind of due process. it should be that way and if that makes it too tough to be a law enforcement officer don't be a law enforcement officer.

Law enforcement officers are not rulers. They are public servants. They work for us. They're not our bosses. Or at least they shouldn't be.

[Col Hogan]

I don't argue that point...but when a law enforcement officer tells you you have to move...you have two choices...do it, or eventually get what she got...

And therein lies the rub. I don't think agents of the State should be able to order citizens around like that. I realize that principle complicates things. But tough. We allow law enforcement officers way too much latitude. A citizen of the United States should not be required to automatically comply with anything an agent of the State...a law enforcement officer in this case...says without any kind of due process. it should be that way and if that makes it too tough to be a law enforcement officer don't be a law enforcement officer.

Law enforcement officers are not rulers. They are public servants. They work for us. They're not our bosses. Or at least they shouldn't be.

That's my quote...and I didn't say you MUST obey...I stated the obvious...you have a choice to obey or not to obey...and the officers has the choice to ignore your ignoring...or take you down like the hippie chick got taken down...

Now, as others have pointed out, that doesn't mean it will hold up in court...but the immediate impact is the same...

And Chiz...nice try...

Maybe in hippiville Redmond its that way...but in the real world...

[YoUDeeMan]

Okay Cluck Welcome to AMERICA...
Those police officers were under NO OBLIGATION what-so-ever to arrest that woman
There is complete legal historical immunity of officers in cases such as that where NO ACTION is completely acceptable and common...

In Cases where there is no immanent danger (Domestic Violence is the exception)
There has never been a case in the US where an officer was held liable for NO ACTION
They are in effect Immune to prosecution (for no action)



Please find a case in the US that contradicts these finding
That is not an immanent danger case / and good luck
I'm interested to see what you come up with...

I look forward to being corrected on this

I'll correct you on these points: the police do not work for you...nor do I. But I'll help you understand what I wrote, since you must be mistaking me with someone else.

l never said that they had to enforce every law at all times. Here's my quote, after pointing out, correctly, that the police do not, in fact, work for you:

"The police work to enforce laws that...as others have pointed out...that the general public, of which you are part, have put in place.

Thus, we are back to my point that you conveniently didn't address in your response. Don't like the laws or the police officers behavior? Change the laws or challenge the behavior formally through the system in which YOU, as a citizen of the country, state, town, live.

It really is that simple."

You are a smart guy...but you contradict yourself. You want officers to have discretion about enforcing laws...but only when that discretion agrees with your ideas. If an officer decides to enforce a law that goes against your beliefs, he is then labeled by you as a mouth breathing robot. Tolerance, apparently, is a one way street.

We have some homeless people in the shopping center near my house (a lovely product of some liberal loser's idea to "integrate" those folks into a nearby neighborhood). Hmmmm...they slept on the sidewalk in front of the stores, walked into a karate class full of kids begging for money (while looking and smelling like crap), hung out and panhandled everyone for money to use at the shopping center's liquor store, and left their garbage all over the lot. The stupid enablers gave them money (similar to feeding the pigeons)...damned guilty consciences...but didn't hang around to see the putrid results of their charity efforts.

The police, at first, ignored...ahem, used their discretion with...the bums. Of course, that just encouraged a whole hoard of them to come to the shopping center. F that. We called the city council, the police chief, the developer, the shopping center owner, and everyone and anyone involved and harassed them until they started removing the bums from the property. It became too much trouble for the bums and they went elsewhere...hopefully to a park in Redland.

Again, in the video you have some hippies looking for a confrontation. They got one. Why the surprise and outrage?

Odd that no one was filming whatever caused a large number of park police to congregate in one area...yet a group of homophobic, intolerant losers were right there to defend their whack job, Obama fan, veteran with camera phones and false accusations at the ready. A bunch of so-called "victims" who destroyed what little credibility they had by filming their profanity laced hissy fit.

[Chizzang]

I'll correct you on these points: the police do not work for you...nor do I. But I'll help you understand what I wrote, since you must be mistaking me with someone else.

l never said that they had to enforce every law at all times. Here's my quote, after pointing out, correctly, that the police do not, in fact, work for you:

"The police work to enforce laws that...as others have pointed out...that the general public, of which you are part, have put in place.

Thus, we are back to my point that you conveniently didn't address in your response. Don't like the laws or the police officers behavior? Change the laws or challenge the behavior formally through the system in which YOU, as a citizen of the country, state, town, live.

It really is that simple."

You are a smart guy...but you contradict yourself. You want officers to have discretion about enforcing laws...but only when that discretion agrees with your ideas. If an officer decides to enforce a law that goes against your beliefs, he is then labeled by you as a mouth breathing robot. Tolerance, apparently, is a one way street.

We have some homeless people in the shopping center near my house (a lovely product of some liberal loser's idea to "integrate" those folks into a nearby neighborhood). Hmmmm...they slept on the sidewalk in front of the stores, walked into a karate class full of kids begging for money (while looking and smelling like crap), hung out and panhandled everyone for money to use at the shopping center's liquor store, and left their garbage all over the lot. The stupid enablers gave them money (similar to feeding the pigeons)...damned guilty consciences...but didn't hang around to see the putrid results of their charity efforts.

The police, at first, ignored...ahem, used their discretion with...the bums. Of course, that just encouraged a whole hoard of them to come to the shopping center. F that. We called the city council, the police chief, the developer, the shopping center owner, and everyone and anyone involved and harassed them until they started removing the bums from the property. It became too much trouble for the bums and they went elsewhere...hopefully to a park in Redland.

Again, in the video you have some hippies looking for a confrontation. They got one. Why the surprise and outrage?

Odd that no one was filming whatever caused a large number of park police to congregate in one area...yet a group of homophobic, intolerant losers were right there to defend their whack job, Obama fan, veteran with camera phones and false accusations at the ready. A bunch of so-called "victims" who destroyed what little credibility they had by filming their profanity laced hissy fit.

Cool Story Bro

[CID1990]

With public complaints, the age of digital video, and mandatory arrest laws? They have very little discretion anymore.

First off I've seen Redmond police completely ignore mandatory arrest laws...
just flat out IGNORE them / because it was the right thing to do

Secondly shouldn't we want qualified police officers
who are capable of deciding "The dangers" in play at any given moment..?
Or are COPs now just crappy union workers without a brain to apply common sense

This concerns me...

From the TSA sure I get it / Brainless monkeys / A plus B = C only & everytime & always
From COP's there's no excuse / Be a thinking mans Public Servant

Which mandatory arrest laws were the Redmond police ignoring? Because the mandatory arrest laws I am familiar with deal with domestic violence and you ignore them at your peril.

[Chizzang]

First off I've seen Redmond police completely ignore mandatory arrest laws...
just flat out IGNORE them / because it was the right thing to do

Secondly shouldn't we want qualified police officers
who are capable of deciding "The dangers" in play at any given moment..?
Or are COPs now just crappy union workers without a brain to apply common sense

This concerns me...

From the TSA sure I get it / Brainless monkeys / A plus B = C only & everytime & always
From COP's there's no excuse / Be a thinking mans Public Servant

Which mandatory arrest laws were the Redmond police ignoring? Because the mandatory arrest laws I am familiar with deal with domestic violence and you ignore them at your peril.

You don't even read my posts do you...

[houndawg]

Okay Cluck Welcome to AMERICA...
Those police officers were under NO OBLIGATION what-so-ever to arrest that woman
There is complete legal historical immunity of officers in cases such as that where NO ACTION is completely acceptable and common...

In Cases where there is no immanent danger (Domestic Violence is the exception)
There has never been a case in the US where an officer was held liable for NO ACTION
They are in effect Immune to prosecution (for no action)



Please find a case in the US that contradicts these finding
That is not an immanent danger case / and good luck
I'm interested to see what you come up with...

I look forward to being corrected on this

I'll correct you on these points: the police do not work for you...nor do I. But I'll help you understand what I wrote, since you must be mistaking me with someone else.

l never said that they had to enforce every law at all times. Here's my quote, after pointing out, correctly, that the police do not, in fact, work for you:

"The police work to enforce laws that...as others have pointed out...that the general public, of which you are part, have put in place.

Thus, we are back to my point that you conveniently didn't address in your response. Don't like the laws or the police officers behavior? Change the laws or challenge the behavior formally through the system in which YOU, as a citizen of the country, state, town, live.

It really is that simple."

You are a smart guy...but you contradict yourself. You want officers to have discretion about enforcing laws...but only when that discretion agrees with your ideas. If an officer decides to enforce a law that goes against your beliefs, he is then labeled by you as a mouth breathing robot. Tolerance, apparently, is a one way street.

We have some homeless people in the shopping center near my house (a lovely product of some liberal loser's idea to "integrate" those folks into a nearby neighborhood). Hmmmm...they slept on the sidewalk in front of the stores, walked into a karate class full of kids begging for money (while looking and smelling like crap), hung out and panhandled everyone for money to use at the shopping center's liquor store, and left their garbage all over the lot. The stupid enablers gave them money (similar to feeding the pigeons)...damned guilty consciences...but didn't hang around to see the putrid results of their charity efforts.

The police, at first, ignored...ahem, used their discretion with...the bums. Of course, that just encouraged a whole hoard of them to come to the shopping center. F that. We called the city council, the police chief, the developer, the shopping center owner, and everyone and anyone involved and harassed them until they started removing the bums from the property. It became too much trouble for the bums and they went elsewhere...hopefully to a park in Redland.

Again, in the video you have some hippies looking for a confrontation. They got one. Why the surprise and outrage?

Odd that no one was filming whatever caused a large number of park police to congregate in one area...yet a group of homophobic, intolerant losers were right there to defend their whack job, Obama fan, veteran with camera phones and false accusations at the ready. A bunch of so-called "victims" who destroyed what little credibility they had by filming their profanity laced hissy fit.

You need to accept that you simply will never be cool enough for Banjo and stop letting the envy make you such an ugly, hateful, person.