Woman, 61, Arrested for asking 'why'

Those who abuse their power do not deserve to be into any authoritative position.

Originally posted by lucid eyes
reply to post by rainfall

 

That has nothing to do with my questions regarding your OP. Where is the evidence that the woman in the OP was arrested for no reason?

You stand here today with the announcement that police officers ARE

a) Tyrants
b) Psychopaths
c) Insane
d) Lunatics


so let me ask you: Do you feel the same way about their families or only law enforcement employees?

And most importantly: Do you believe that criminals are not

a) Tyrants
b) Psychopaths
c) Insane
d) Lunatics

???

Lucid:

If law enforcement people don't want to be in the position or light that we think of them, then they have every avenue available to them to correct our perception. They don't even try.

Bottom line is: There is NEVER a cop around when you need one, and there is ALWAYS a cop around when you don't need one. They abuse power when ever appropriate for them to do so, and the courts ALWAYS side with law enforcement.

They (cops, law enforcement, court systems) can change our perception, but I really think they just don't care.

BTW - before you bash me, I know at least 15 people in law enforcement in NYC and a few surrounding counties. Some of them are Sergeants, Lieutenants, and regular PO’s. Some are long-time friends of mine, some are acquaintances. They all have some disturbing abuse stories that they brag about - many of which I find to be too disturbing hear. They do it mainly for the fun of it, and because they can.

There is no check and balance for law enforcement.

-E2

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by UsernameCory

 

Carey met three friends on the sidewalk outside the Boulevard Lotto convenience store mid-afternoon last March 26, and for a few moments they talked about upcoming services for a friend who had died after she was hit by a car in front of the store where they were standing. Dolson and his partner pulled up and told the four women to “move it.” All agreed that the women were not blocking the sidewalk and that the women were the only people on the sidewalk.

Did you not read the whole article?

I would also have expected the cops to ask me to keep on moving if I had loitered on the sidewalk. Any land owner or on the bequest of the land owner can have loiters removed from the property.

I had already known - from the quoting of a news article without summarizing the full five W's - the thread maker would have created a bias slate in the article. Trust me, the OP did a huge disservice of summarizing the article without thinking about the 5 w's.

Here's the clearest summary:
Who - Mouthy old lady and Captain America
When - Current event
Where - Business side walk
What - Captain America requests mouthy old lady respect the law and she refuses.
Why - She continued loitering after Captain America had requested her to leave.

Less than 50 words summary of the incident. The response that the cop had held her for 9 hours can be left out of the summary.



[edit on 1-3-2010 by UsernameCory]

Option #1: LEO sees a group of ladies standing on the sidewalk, decides that they are breaking some ordinance, and simply yells, "Move it." When the ladies - or just one of the ladies - asks the officer to clarify the request, i.e. cite the ordinance/law and explain how they are violating it - the officer simply arrests her for having the gall to question his authority.

Option #2: LEO sees a group of ladies standing on the sidewalk, decides that they are breaking some ordinance, approaches said ladies and explains that their gathering is in violation, and could they please take the conversation a little further down the street.

Which option is good policing, and which gets the officer a day in court for abusing power?

Just saying.

I don't hate the police, they do a great job. I just wish that there were more community policing.

All of these events(police and feds disrespecting citizens) will probably lead to people fighting back.

The same thing will happen as in the French Revolution.

People are like a time bomb!

The irony is that there are police officers on this site as members, I wonder what they have to say about all of this?

reply to post by UsernameCory


You didn't read the whole article. The board sustianed her objections, therefore they were in complete agreement with her. Obviously something must be amiss if they agreed all the charges were bogus. Guys, this is so easy, if you won't read the article offer no commentary.

en.wikipedia.org...

Generally speaking a gaggle of ladies standing on the sidewalk and talking is not considered loitering. If that had actually gone to court it would most likely be thrown out as the owner of the business did not have anything to say about. S/he didn't call the cops. Most sidewalks are PUBLIC, you can't be arrested for loitering on a public sidewalk unless there is an ordinance or sign stating you can't stand there. There was no such rule. When most people are arrested for "loitering" they are also arrested for various other illegal acts. According to the article the ladies were not blocking the sidewalk and the cops agreed with that point. Therefore, they did nothing wrong.


[edit on 1-3-2010 by antonia]

I've been on both sides of the law (arrested a few times, also served as SP and Security Detail in the Navy) and I've had good and bad encounters. I have a friend who was a Special Agent for the FBI (narcotics and judicial misconduct) and she is an honorable person.

A personal experience regarding power going to one's head - when I was in the Navy, I had this roommate who was this little, picked-on nerd type. The day he made Petty Officer, he went out in his uniform with his new rank, looked for regular enlisted (E3 and below), and hassled them with stupid things like, "You shoelaces aren't tied in a military manner." In his words, "...[he] finally got his revenge".

Like some posters have pointed out, you get good and bad. I worked for some of the best managers/leaders in the service, and for some of the worst. The worst were the ones who got self esteem from something external, like a badge or insignia of rank, instead of from being a "good" person. As Kaffee said in A Few Good Men, "You don't need a patch on your arm to have honor."

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
Wait until martial law comes.

They don't even need to cuff you and cart you off to jail for disobeying an order.

They can just shoot you in the head where you stand. All perfectly legal too.........

And I can tell you from 'reliable' source, that they CAN shoot you in the head, if they care to go thru all the paperwork. So don't push em, don't say a word. They usually carry around an unmarked pistol in a bag, in their trunks. They kill you, then get that gun out and put it in your hand. They were just defending themselves. Remember Vince Foster, The First Man's husbands' lawyer. (Get it? He wasn't the president, Pillory was).

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst
Complete abuse of power.


remember all those nerds, that you used to laugh at, and make fun of at school ??? gues what .....


THEIR COPS !!!


My cousin was falsely arrested,... luckily he had a complete psychopath of a public defender who actualy fought for him. ... and even after the officer LIED on the stand, they were able to prove he lied, and he got off.

Yet are they punished for lying on the stand ?

One of my friends was recently falsely arrested as well, .... an officer drove by and shouted " what the f##k did you say ". My friend just continued walking, ..... the officer then drove around the block, came back and arrested him.

My friend didn't know why, ... in the report the officer gave him some bogus charge like " pedestrian unsafely doing something" ..... and claimed my friend was standing in the middle of the street, and he had to swerve to avoid hitting him.

This officer also lied on the stand, .... yet it was my friend who bit the bullet this time, and went to jail.

And your friend's lawyer didn't ask for the police cruiser's camera video?

reply to post by franspeakfree

Oh, come on! What do you think a dishonest gangbanger is going to say about his fellow gangbangers? I respect the law, thus I disrespect the pretend law enforcement officers, who regularly disreguard and hold it and us, in contempt.

I have often seen posts talking about if martial law were ever declared, that American soldiers would never fire on other Americans.

But this case proves that some of them probably would.
Power corrupts is an old saying but still very true.

reply to post by lucid eyes


You seemingly make a lot of assumptions of people and selectively pick statements out of context to further your point. You aren't a cop are you?

reply to post by smyleegrl


Whatever! With 18 prevees and 3 under investigation - not to mention the suspension? You would probably defend Hannibal or ther Doges of the inquisition.

Most policemen are good men. They are heros, trying to protect us. It's just that a few lunatics abused the privelage of power.

Read my picture, it's a perfect quote from Shakespeare.

There is NO LAW that forbids ' loitering', ..anymore. Cops used this catch all law to harrass and deny rights for decades, and the courts shut it down. Unless you are BLOCKING a sidewalk, there is NO LAW BROKEN.

This is a case plain and clear of police misconduct. False arrest. The cop should be fired and sued. The cops have ZERO business moving decent old ladies along when they are conversing on a public sidewalk and bothering no one. the cop just had a big ego and could not defend her actions and so just arrested her!! typical cops...always trying to use the law in ways that no decent person would ever imagine.

NO LAW was broken...the cop had NO AUTHORITY to do what she did...and the arrest was false. Anyone who defends a cop under these circumstances needs a reality check...and professional help.

Originally posted by lucid eyes
reply to post by rainfall

 

That has nothing to do with my questions regarding your OP. Where is the evidence that the woman in the OP was arrested for no reason?

You stand here today with the announcement that police officers ARE

a) Tyrants
b) Psychopaths
c) Insane
d) Lunatics


so let me ask you: Do you feel the same way about their families or only law enforcement employees?

And most importantly: Do you believe that criminals are not

a) Tyrants
b) Psychopaths
c) Insane
d) Lunatics

???

Enough said.....what you do to my brother you do to me...

What did I do to your brother?

"The Citizen Review Board found that Atlanta Police officer Brandy Dolson had violated APD policies and had falsely arrested Carey.

"I was blown away," Carey told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "I had heard about people in the community being harassed by the police ... It really didn't shock me as much as it probably would have if I had not heard of people going to jail for no reason. I figured I was just another one.

"But I had the right to ask 'why’ I had to move," she said.

The Citizen Review Board – resurrected after the 2006 fatal police shooting of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston in her home – voted in a recent meeting to sustain Carey’s false arrest claim and the allegation that the officer had violated the department’s arrest policies.

“This case will illustrate to the public how OPS [Office of Professional Standards] responds [to allegations of police misconduct] ... There have been some concerns that OPS has not sustained complaints,” said Seth Kirschenbaum, an attorney who is vice-chairman of the board.

Did you even READ the article? There is your proof that the cop falsely arrested....any comments now?

reply to post by richierich


I can't believe I am agreeing with you..lol..but you are right. I called some friends who work for APD and talked to them. They said the officer in question should of been fired a long time ago but affirmative action is what got her hired. (their words, not mine). Anyway here is the Loitering & Prowling law for GA (if it hasn't been posted before):

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-36 (2008)
§ 16-11-36. Loitering or prowling


(a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.

(b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.

(c) A person committing the offense of loitering or prowling shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(d) This Code section shall not be deemed or construed to affect or limit the powers of counties or municipal corporations to adopt ordinances or resolutions prohibiting loitering or prowling within their respective limits.

They told this officer was not well liked and many are waiting to see what the city now does with her.

Exactly. There has to be OTHER factors that lead to a cop believing that someone is ' loitering'. The definition has changed...in the old days cops would use loitering laws to deny rights to people that they did not like congregating together. In other words, the cops would assume that you were ' idle' which is what the original law stated...the ' idleness' was illegal and thrown out because a cop is in NO position to say who is ' idle' and who is not!!

It was a way to shuffle ' undesirables' off the corner where the ' decent' citizens would feel better not seeing the poor and homeless..it was used illegally for decades to force compliance with cops personal opinions about the arrearance of a human being, but NOT their actions. The Supreme Court threw out almost all loitering statutes and they have to include elements of suspicion being committed, such as flight or hiding something...before they can be charged.

The demand that cops give a chance to explain is necessary because most cops would just arrest you and throw you in jail and to hell with any reasonable explanations!! Cops ABUSE their authority so much that it has to be assumed that they will stretch every laws meaning to the very limits unless the law is tailored to prevent abuse, such as in this case.

So, to a cop, a man standing on a corner with a suit and tie on is simply a citizen out for a stroll...a man dressed in tatters is ' loitering' because the cop simply doesn't like his looks. The law has to be structured so that the police cannot abuse its meaning, as is their habit.

reply to post by rainfall


Paddy Wagon?? Give me a break. I'll bet you need to check the age of this story and probably other circumstances. You've given me nothing more than and anecdote to satisfy your obvious hatred for policemen. I'll agree, that there are jerks with a badge, and I've dealt with them, beat the crap out of one, and made another excrement in his shorts for being a jerk. But, please, if this is all you have, you aren't making a very good point for your case.