Dad's actions didn't warrant arrest

Dad's actions didn't warrant arrest

www.news-sentinel.com

As a serially unsuccessful political candidate bent on repealing Social Security, William Larsen has proved his willingness to challenge the status quo. But challenging a federal entitlement popular with millions of Americans was child’s play compared to what happened to Larsen when he threatened the high school musical establishment’s revenue stream.

For his troubles, the disabled Navy veteran was put in a headlock by a Fort Wayne Police officer, charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, handcuffed and hauled off to jail – all because he insisted on videotaping his daughter’s show-choir performance.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I almost always find these cop abuse cases to be crap, but this one went way beyond the boundaries of acceptable. First of all, not permitting a parent to videotape their own child in a facillity tax dollars funded because the public school signed a for profit "exclusivity" contract is a violation of the first amendment. I could understand to some degree if they ruled NO VIDEOTAPING period because of other parents' wishes to not have their children taped by anyone... but clearly that wasn't the case here. Second of all, did the guy's actions, regardless of whether the cop thought he was clowning or serious, warrant a headlock and drag backwards out of his seat? He was basically assaulted for absolutely no reason other than being an ass towards a cop that probably was acting like a big fish in a little bowl, himself. Big whoop. The public interest was in no way served here and I hope Mr. Larson walks away with a sizeable chunk of change and the cop walks a beat for a couple years.

www.news-sentinel.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

completely unwarrented. cops are out of control. they don't even know the laws themselves anymore. it's pathetic. don't get me wrong I know a good number of good cops but unfortunantly more bad ones. whats sad is that the bad ones don't often know that they are being bad, they have their heads so far up their asses they don't even see their behavior for what it really is.

I wish I had tickets to the show...the show that was up that cops ass cause thats where his head was.

As always, two sides to every story... hmm lets see what else was in the article...

Larsen had just paid $8 for his ticket when he was told he would not be allowed to videotape the event – a warning reinforced by several signs. Larsen said something like “I paid my money. I’ll do as I please,” refusing to leave his camera at the door before pushing his way into the gym.

Larsen’s “belligerent” response drew the attention of off-duty Fort Wayne Police Sgt. Allen Glock, who had been hired by Northrop to provide security for the event. The 26-year veteran warned Larsen he would be removed from the school if he taped the competition.

“We’ll see about that,” Larsen replied, questioning Glock’s authority to arrest him.

and...

Could Larsen have handled the situation better? No doubt. Even Lenore, his wife of 24 years, admits he “has a tendency to blow things out of proportion.”

Did he deserve the headlock, maybe not, but we're too quick to jump and yell, bad cops, dirty cops every time.

silly if you ask me.

reply to post by elevatedone


True, but look at the reason he wasn't "allowed" to videotape his own child's performance in a tax payer funded facillity during a public (tax dollar supported) school function:

He wonders how Northrop’s choir department could have signed a contract allowing Huntington Media Services Inc. exclusive rights to videotape his daughter for profit without his permission, while denying him the ability to do the same, using his own equipment, in a public school.

He wonders how he could be arrested, manhandled, sent to jail and charged with a crime when even the police acknowledged his videotaping would have broken no law – and his camera was still under his seat, in any case.

It works both ways... or at least it should work both ways. If you haven't broken any laws, it should be clearly entrapment when the cops end up ultimately forcing you to break the law. He should have never been forced to resist the cop as the cop had no legal ground to do squat to him. Once again, the almighty dollar overrules the law of the land. What would have happened if he had defended himself and busted the cop across the chops after he was drug out of his seat for no reason? To me that would have been perfectly justifiable as he wasn't even remotely breaking any laws. I support the police, but when they do crap like this they slowly erode that support.

reply to post by elevatedone


err...

My only concern is that parents where not allowed to tape their child's recital?

WTF?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by elevatedone

 

err...

My only concern is that parents where not allowed to tape their child's recital?

WTF?

i completely agree. the cop issue is hardly the point. the dad was exercising his right as a parent and the cop (right or wrong... not gonna judge this one) was doing his job.

the "not being allowed" to record his daughter's performance is the issue, or so it would seem to me. "big brother" is allowed to record our moves all OVER the place and yet these ppl were not allowed to "freeze" a moment in the ever so quickly passing time of their children's lives?

edited to add: i understand that they may have been able to purchase a recording of the event, but being a parent is expensive enough.. we shouldn't have to purchase their moments too.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by justamomma]

What ever happened to the laws regarding escalation of force? Why on earth did the cop decide to put the guy in a choke hold. cops need to learn to keep their hands to themselves and to use force when it is warranted. give the guy a court summons like a civilized person you stupid a hole. you don't simply go around manhandling people because you are a cop. civilians have rights too. more than an on duty police officer. it's time cops realized this. yo are not a gang, but a civil servant.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

First of all, not permitting a parent to videotape their own child in a facillity tax dollars funded because the public school signed a for profit "exclusivity" contract is a violation of the first amendment.

Actually, the courts will throw out your case as frivelous if you go in there trying to argue for your "Constitutional rights."

What exactly was the rule? No filming, or no cameras?

Second of all, did the guy's actions, regardless of whether the cop thought he was clowning or serious, warrant a headlock and drag backwards out of his seat?

You break the rules, you go to jail. If he wanted to argue against the rule, the cop is not the person to hear his grievance. It's the job of the officer to enforce the rules, period.

Now there are some other issues I do have with this case and don't agree with all that has happened, but I really am surprised that the charges against him were dropped.

I have been to school events and not even able to see my kid do his thing due to all of the parents with video cameras jumping up and blocking my view. I do have to admit that police officers are becoming more and more aggressive in dealing with with nonthreatening situations. At least the cop didn't tase him.

I have questions about the cop being OFF DUTY.

Does this have any type of implications of assault by grabbing this man???
Even if he did break a "rule"....not a law?

I would have knocked the guy on his a$$ if he did not have a visible badge and uniform.

Originally posted by Grafilthy
I have questions about the cop being OFF DUTY.

Does this have any type of implications of assault by grabbing this man???
Even if he did break a "rule"....not a law?

I would have knocked the guy on his a$$ if he did not have a visible badge and uniform.

good point!! i have always had confusion about when a citizen is technically a cop and when he is not.

would seem to me that if this was his job, he could only enact his job when he was on duty, but it seems that a lot of them hold to the notion that they are always on the job.

citizen's arrest maybe? is that an actual legit thing that can be carried out? if so, maybe most citizens don't realize this, but cops do which is why they carry out their duties even when not on the "clock" but cite they are cops so as not to give way to any disorder by the public? just thinking here. lol

[edit on 15-7-2008 by justamomma]

reply to post by Grafilthy


In many places, an officer is ALWAYS on the job, and is required by law to act. In a sense, they are never off duty at all. Not just as a matter of conscience, but again, as a matter of law. This is not so in all jurisdictions however, and the laws vary from state to state.

reply to post by justamomma


One would not need be a police officer to act in this case either. Anyone who was acting as an authorized agent of the school would have been allowed to enforce the rules, by force if necessary.

Each state with the exception of North Carolina permits citizen arrests if the commission of felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections of police, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights.[17]

source


so, i guess they could, but then again......... so can we

This seems to be a fairly common occurance. Sure they guy sounds like a jerk but the police abuse of power is becoming common place.
As this begins to happen more frequently then more people will start to fear/hate the police which will make it happen with more frequency; a viscious circle if you will.

How about the story floating around the internet today about the guy taking photos of HIS children in the park, when the other parents start calling him pervert? If it were here and there was a cop around how do you think it would've ended? After all, unless the children looked just like him how would anyone know for sure they were his? Until, of course, his kids start freaking out because daddy is being accosted by the police.

I just don't think folks are going to wake up before this really becomes a problem. Yeah us!!!

Originally posted by jackinthebox

You break the rules, you go to jail. If he wanted to argue against the rule, the cop is not the person to hear his grievance. It's the job of the officer to enforce the rules, period.

You are wrong. It isn't the cop's job to enforce any rules of the school. It's the cop's job to enforce the law. The only thing they could have gotten him for was tresspassing prior to the cop thinking he was Billy Badass and throwing a WWF move on him. Since at no point in the article does it say he was ever considered tresspassing, that clearly wasn't at issue. If I walk into a buisness that says "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" wearing only a pair of shorts, then I can only be prosecuted for tresspassing after I have been ordered to vacate the premises by an officer of the law. The first cop wasn't acting as an officer of the law, he was acting in the role of an employee of the school, so he didn't count.

The 26-year veteran warned Larsen he would be removed from the school if he taped the competition.

That's the key here, HE NEVER TAPED ANYTHING. The cop wanted to remove him from the facillity before he did anything wrong. It's a simple case of a guy disrespecting a cop so the cop decided to throw some weight around. No problem if a law has actually been broken, but here we have the cops basically telling the guy "Either do as we say, even though you haven't done anything wrong, or you'll be doing something wrong and we'll get you on that." The line in the article that says charges were dropped because the man wasn't disturbing the ceremony also leads me to believe that his "belligerence" level was far less than that of a pair of "Oh, we have badges so we're entitled" cops' level of belligerence.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

You are wrong. It isn't the cop's job to enforce any rules of the school.

Actually, I am quite correct, and know this from my own professional experience. It IS INDEED the cop's job to enforce the rules of the school, if he was hired by the school to do so.

If I walk into a buisness that says "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" wearing only a pair of shorts, then I can only be prosecuted for tresspassing after I have been ordered to vacate the premises by an officer of the law.

Not so. I can throw you out of a bar, by force, for not wearing the right attire if I feel like it, wether or not I'm a cop. I can also confiscate a camera if I want to.

That's the key here, HE NEVER TAPED ANYTHING.

If that is indeed the case though. I wonder exactly what the signs said, because that really is the crux of the whole case. But regardless, if he was told to leave, he had no choice. Refusing to do so meant he failed to respond to a lawful order, and that force could be used to grant compliance.

My first question is by what authority is the public school system allowed to negotiate a 'private' event.

Understand this is the root of the problem in court. The 'arresting' individual was exercising his skills and training as a police officer privately, at the behest and by ostensibly legal means (moonlighting as a security guard is a common event in the police community no?).

Under the guise of hired security, he would be expected to eject anyone who refused to comply with the standards set 'by the establishment's management'. Presumably the establishment was an open - public facility - closed for a private 'paid' event. I'm sure that is likely to be a common practice.

But can a 'public school' negotiate a 'private' event for the public school's benefit? Were they sold 'tickets' or were the tickets de facto 'suggested donations'? It gets sticky at the bottom you see?

If the public school is ruled to not be able to close that kind of exclusivity deal, the actions of the security guard would have been unnecessary, thus our man-handled dad has a strong case.

But if it is assumed otherwise, the dad was bound to comply with the 'house rules', and if he refused, he should have taken his kid home and gotten his money back. A stretch to the extreme surely, but basically, "when your in my house it's under my rules" applies here.

But that doesn't address the issue of the off-duty policeman, who is apparently conditioned to be a bouncer, rather than a peace officer.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Maxmars]