TheAgitator.com
Some Good News
Friday, April 18th, 2008A Florida prosecutor has decided not to press charges against a guy arrested for videotaping an undercover police officer:
In declining to prosecute Sievert, the state pointed to a decision in a federal lawsuit in which a judge awarded a man damages for his arrest for videotaping police.
[...]
“The activities of the police, like those of other public officials, are subject to public scrutiny,” a federal judge wrote. “Robinson’s right to free speech encompasses the right to receive information and ideas.”
The police, the judge wrote, citing a case in Texas, do not have “unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that annoy or offend them.”
That language could apply in all sorts of contexts.
Kudos to the prosecutors in this case for showing proper restraint.
My favorite is when the police or TSA or whatever arrest someone for interfering with their work by “creating a distraction.” Shouldn’t anyone so easily distracted be sent back through the training program?
So when are we going to see the criminal prosecution of the deputies involved and the civil rights lawsuit against the Manatee County Sheriff’s Department?
This is awesome. A federal judge’s ruling was cited as precedent in a pro-civil rights case, what’s the world coming too?
Jefferson 1
TITLE 32-NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER XIX–CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
PART 1903–CONDUCT ON AGENCY INSTALLATIONS–Table of Contents
Sec. 1903.8 Interfering with Agency functions.
The following are prohibited:
(a) Interference. Threatening, resisting, intimidating, or
intentionally interfering with a government employee or agent engaged in
an official duty, or on account of the performance of an official duty.
(b) Violation of a lawful order. Violating the lawful order of an
authorized person to maintain order and control, public access and
movement during fire fighting operations, law enforcement actions, and
emergency operations that involve a threat to public safety or
government resources, or other activities where the control of public
movement and activities is necessary to maintain order and public health
or safety.
(c) False information. Knowingly giving false information:
(1) To an authorized person investigating an accident or violation
of law or regulation; or
(2) On an application for a permit.
(d) False report. Knowingly giving a false report for the purpose of
misleading an authorized person in the conduct of official duties, or
making a false report that causes a response by the government to a
fictitious event.
My bad, sorry.
CHAPTER I–NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PART 2–RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION–Table of Contents
Sec. 2.32 Interfering with agency functions.
(a) The following are prohibited:
(1) Interference. Threatening, resisting, intimidating, or
intentionally interfering with a government employee or agent engaged in
an official duty, or on account of the performance of an official duty.
(2) Lawful order. Violating the lawful order of a government
employee or agent authorized to maintain order and control public access
and movement during fire fighting operations, search and rescue
operations, wildlife management operations involving animals that pose a
threat to public safety, law enforcement actions, and emergency
operations that involve a threat to public safety or park resources, or
other activities where the control of public movement and activities is
necessary to maintain order and public safety.
(3) False information. Knowingly giving a false or fictitious
report or other
[[Page 27]]
false information: (i) To an authorized person investigating an accident
or violation of law or regulation or; (ii) on an application for a
permit.
(4) False Report. Knowingly giving a false report for the purpose
of misleading a government employee or agent in the conduct of official
duties, or making a false report that causes a response by the United
States to a fictitious event.
(b) The regulations contained in this section apply, regardless of
land ownership, on all lands and waters within a park area that are
under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States.
[...] Some good news from Radley Balko, quoting from the Herald Tribune: “The activities of the police, like those of other public officials, are subject to public scrutiny,” a federal judge wrote. [...]
Frank, honey. You ask too much.
Just take the bone you’re thrown and be happy.
Nope. A police officer’s badge is not a patent of nobility, they are subject to exactly the same laws as the rest of us and it is long past time they were reminded of it.
If you let cops slide on little things like this, you eventually end up with cops who think nothing of blowing away grandmothers then planting drug in her home to justify the shooting.
Don’t we already have those?