TheAgitator.com
Another Isolated Incident?
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009A Toledo man says he was wrongfully arrested after Toledo police barged into his home.
A Toledo man says he was wrongfully arrested after Toledo police barged into his home.
Lloyd Williams, 56, has a clean record, except for a few traffic tickets. He admits he was at a friend’s house and had a couple of beers, but says he’s not involved in TPD’s investigation.
Williams says Toledo Vice detectives arrested him for no reason. The Vice and SWAT team raided a home at 1722 Washington last night. Williams lives next door. He says he was coming in the house when he heard the back gate rattle.
He claims vice detectives beat him up, and they handcuffed him. Police charged him with three crimes, including obstructing official business. Police declined to talk about the case because it’s an ongoing investigation.
Williams says he feels the officers violated his rights and his family plans to do something about it. Williams wants the charges against him dropped. He contacted TPD’s Internal Affairs and plans to file a complaint.
This happened 11 days ago. I haven’t seen any follow-up.
My first response was, “odd.” But on second thought, this isn’t odd at all. How sad is that?
Curious to see how this one turns out.
I dispute any claim that the cops arrested someone for no reason. Cops always have at least one reason for arresting someone: because they can.
The guaranty that people should “be secure in their person, houses, and papers” has been thrown out by the Supreme Court as conflicting with the government’s mission of protecting people’s security. That’s not to say they’ve thrown out the baby with the bathwater. It’s saying they threw out the baby and didn’t even touch the bathwater.
Dave, it’s not so much about protecting people’s security, but protecting the power and authority of the state. It’s also about protecting an official gang, released onto the streets and beefed up with authority. People in power need people on the streets to do their dirty work. If anything, the constant abuse of power demonstrates that the people’s security means nothing to these folks.
This is why Shakespeare said “first thing, kill all of the lawyers.” Only a lawyer could be so fork-tongued to negate part of the constitution because of philosophy. I am increasingly of the opinion that, in general, civil government does not work and has never worked because of the way that police and the courts behave. It’s a damn fine argument for spontaneous order if there ever was one because God knows that those bumbling scoundrels could never keep the peace if people weren’t predisposed to creating spontaneous order. The only part of the government in this country that consistently works is the military and its associated agencies.
He says he was coming in the house when he heard the back gate rattle.
He claims vice detectives beat him up, and they handcuffed him.
I hate to be on the side of the POlice, but what happened after he heard the gate rattle? Did he charge after them guns ablazin? It just seems like an important part of that whole story is missing between “gate rattle” and “detectives beat him up”.
Only a lawyer could be so fork-tongued to negate part of the constitution because of philosophy.
I take issue with this. The current mess is the reluctance of society to pay for enough lawyering up of criminal defendants; and the overeagerness of society to pay for prosecutors.
The lawyers are not the problem. Rather it is the systemic imbalance of lawyers.
What are the answers:
1. automatic (but reasonably small) compensation for fruitless searches and Terry stops — something like what you get for being bumped off an airplane.
2. 4A small claims court (no lawyers allowed for either side, either; max claim $5,000).
3. Re-establish right to flee police on foot if you have committed no crime.
If 1 or 2 had been in place then this guy would not have resisted arrest (assuming he did), and would be compensated for the real (but moderate) legal injury he would have suffered had his arrest been uneventful.
Would it be possible for victims like this to walk into city hall or FBI and make a criminal assault and kidnapping complaint against the vice squad. It seems that an unprovoked attack would warrant such a charge and most internal affairs departments would never bring criminal charges against an officer.
I agree on the lack of detail to the story. Why leave out all the details about what went down with the cops, but include the fact that he had a couple beers at a friend’s house? Maybe the guy got a little loud-mouthed or something.
But, even aside from this case, I’d like to know why every time someone challenges the cops on what they’re doing, they wind up arrested. Does questioning the cops automatically mean you’re interfering with them? Is being angry when you’re the victim of cop stupidity (or even simple human error) constitute a crime worthy of arrest? Are cops just so thin-skinned that they have to retaliate against everything that ruffles their feathers? Maybe they should be forced to do a stint as a checkout clerk in a fast food joint to build up a little tolerance for human communications outside the boundaries of “yes sir” and “no sir”. Maybe they should enroll in some thug-mentality management classes. I’m sure a lot of dogs would appreciate it.
Mike T: by your logic, societies without lawyers (or with very few) should be beacons of peace and stability. Afghanistan, anyone?
That is only part of it. The profession itself in America is a large part of the problem. They have been allowed to twist simple words into complex interpretations for too long. You pointed that out with your reference to the SCOTUS taking the simple words of the 4th amendment and turning them into something extremely complicated that is often negated in situations where our founding fathers intended them to apply. Where we disagree, is that I would wager that this sort of thinking is actually quite common in their profession.
Correlation is not causation. That saying may be very cliche, but in your case, it applies in spades. You might as well say that free market-leaning policies makes a society free, China’s example notwithstanding.
Or that extremely low taxes do as well, Saudi Arabia (where most “taxes” are tiny user fees compared to America because oil pays for almost all government).
My daughter was in Afghanistan for a while working in their justice system to establish an indigent legal defense function. From some of the things she’s said, they weren’t too keen on the concept that someone might not have committed the crime they’re accused of.
Lawyers aren’t the cause of all the world’s legal problems anymore than economists are the cause of all the world’s economic problems. The root of the problem in both cases is the exchange of favors between special interests and those in government who wield power. The losers are those who don’t fit into one of those two groups.
Mike T:
“The only part of the government in this country that consistently works is the military and its associated agencies.”
I’m guessing that you’ve never actually been part of the military, then.
#5 mattincincy
“I hate to be on the side of the POlice, but what happened after he heard the gate rattle? Did he charge after them guns ablazin? It just seems like an important part of that whole story is missing between “gate rattle” and “detectives beat him up”.”
Yes I agree there is something missing.
1. Warrant to enter his home, and yes when they opened his gate they entered his curtilage (that is his home).
2. Three crimes he was charged with, one was obstruction, what were the other two?
3. How can he obstruct from his home, when they were next door? Mouthing off is still free speech, and not obstruction.
4. Probable cause to use exigent circumstances to enter his home. I saw nothing about evidence destruction, life or limb situation within the home, hot pursuit, or maybe his home was on fire.
Mike T:
Court cases don’t magically appear when we litigators press our secret rings together like the Wonder Twins. (”Take form of …. breach of contract dispute!!!!”) People sue each other’s asses and we are the taxis that take them to that duel. If there is a dispute about a “simple word” it’s because there was enough uncertainty in the wording that would permit such a debate.
@ DaveW
“The current mess is the reluctance of society to pay for enough lawyering up of criminal defendants.”
And, I take issue with this. The problem is not that the state doesn’t take enough money from me.
Certainly, lawyers are NOT the problem. Lawyers are a libertarian’s best friend as they are integral in the true rule of law and in ensuring responsibility/liability.
@ DaveK
Yes. Question a cop and you will be arrested.
“I hate to be on the side of the POlice, but what happened after he heard the gate rattle? Did he charge after them guns ablazin? It just seems like an important part of that whole story is missing between “gate rattle” and “detectives beat him up”.”
The video story says that he went into his house, heard his gate rattle, stuck his head out and asked what they were doing and then the cops popped his screen door into his dead and brought him to the floor. They then dragged him handcuffed back to his neighbor’s house and threw him in with the rest of the handcuffed guys.
The cops say they told him to go back in his house 5 times. I can’t figure out what would give them the authority to force him back in his house.
The only part of this government that works is trash pickup and that was mostly run by the maffia (for the record there is no maffia).
Are cops just so thin-skinned that they have to retaliate against everything that ruffles their feathers?
I think there’s some of that mixed with the idea of arresting people so they’ll wind up taking a plea and lose their ability to sue.
And, I take issue with this. The problem is not that the state doesn’t take enough money from me.
There are ways to achieve spending parity between prosecutor and defense legal teams without increasing your taxes.
I am not taking a position on whether the criminal justice pie should be bigger or smaller. All I am saying is: (i) it is not the fault of lawyers that it is split so unevenly; and (ii) it needs to be split more evenly.
No, but overall the US military has accomplished its mission to defend the US and its interests successfully. It’s far from perfect on a day-to-day mission, but it’s hardly the institutional f#$% up that many law enforcement agencies are.
I also wonder if a reason the story’s so light on details is because that TV station wants to cover the cops’ butts. Don’t want to be hard on them, because they might harass you, or they might not give you the access you want on another story. So let’s just mention that the guy had a few beers, leave a bunch of stuff unsaid, and not look hard at the actions of the police.
If he started yelling at the police from his yard, that could have an effect on their operation in some cases. I doubt that would apply here, but if there were a hostage situation, and he started yelling “hey you motherfucking pigs what are you doing in his yard” as they try to sneak around back of his neighbor’s yard to attack him from the rear, he should absolutely be charged with obstruction of justice if there is any impact from his actions. In fact, if any of the hostages die he should be civilly liable on top of that too.
Heh. On the video it claims the cops told him 5 times to get back in the house.
First, he wasn’t doing anything, telling him once then ignoring him unless he comes over to the ‘crime scene’ would have been enough.
Second, play the tape for me. When I hear the tape of the cops clearly telling him to stay away 5 times I’ll believe it. Until then, I assume the cops are lying.
Cops are not morally righteous people with well defined moral compasses, they’re part of the “Brotherhood of Blue” that will always side with other cops.
Part of the ‘kool aid’ they drink is the constant reaffirmation that they ‘put their lives on the line for you every day’ such that you OWE them for being the ‘righteous martyrs’ that they think they are.
This guy challenged that perceived debt simply by yelling out his back door, and as such, directly challenged the artificially constructed self image of ‘righteous defender of the people’.
That’s my take, anyway… bear in mind I don’t have any more info about this case than any of you, I’m just trying to get into the ‘mind’ of the police to try to figure out why they do what they do and make sense of the contradictory statements they make.
I think that the idea of prosecutors and public defenders being pulled from the same pool looks like a better idea every day. As long as they don’t collude. (sigh) And that would be wishful thinking, wouldn’t it.
I have often wondered about this as well. Covering news costs money. The easier the city makes it for the local news organization, the less it costs. I think the days of serious local investigative journalism are over. Now, it’s “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. Unless a cops gets indicted, the local news almost always sides with the cops. If there’s potential misconduct involved, the local news will give it minimal attention and drop it completely soon after. They just don’t want to alienate the cops and risk having that spigot turned off. There are exceptions, but not nearly enough.
#24 Mike T
“If he started yelling at the police from his yard, that could have an effect on their operation in some cases. I doubt that would apply here, but if there were a hostage situation, and he started yelling “hey you motherfucking pigs what are you doing in his yard” as they try to sneak around back of his neighbor’s yard to attack him from the rear, he should absolutely be charged with obstruction of justice if there is any impact from his actions. In fact, if any of the hostages die he should be civilly liable on top of that too.”
I still have to disagree with this, as you state it.
Lets look at this from what we see daily on this site.
First if it was a hostage situation the cops would not rush in with a no-knock warrant. They would be outside with lights rolling, and bull horn blaring, because they only rush into known non-violent situations. If this statement is not true, please show me when it was different.
Second the cops could always say that it effected their operations any time you asked the muthafukin pigs what they were doing.
Third if he was yelling at them to find out what they were doing in his neighbors yard, he evidently did not know why they were there, and he probably did not know they were police, because they try to hide that fact for some reason.
Fourth nothing here would suggest intent on his part, and yes intent may not be needed, but it is important. Lets look at it this way he yelled (not knowing about the hostages), and it warned a criminal, and the criminal kills his hostage. By your reasoning the person that yelled should be liable (at least civilly). Now lets say someone driving down the road suddenly sees this guy dressed in all black, masked, carrying a weapon designed to kill on the battlefield jump in front of him. He honks his horn at the man (not knowing it was a cop) this warns the hostage taker, who then kills his hostage. Would we hold the driver responsible also? The only difference is one is in a car, and the other in his yard, but both have the same prior knowledge of the situation.
“Are cops just so thin-skinned that they have to retaliate against everything that ruffles their feathers?
I think there’s some of that mixed with the idea of arresting people so they’ll wind up taking a plea and lose their ability to sue.”
I think it’s more freudian than that.
Heh. From MacK, post 28.
“First if it was a hostage situation the cops would not rush in with a no-knock warrant. They would be outside with lights rolling, and bull horn blaring, because they only rush into known non-violent situations. If this statement is not true, please show me when it was different.”
Yup, that’s the rule. They almost always wait for the perp to get tired of killin’ and shoot himself before rolling in. It was this way even back in the day… remember the San Ysidro mass murders at Mc Donalds in 1984? The police stood outside with their thumbs up their butts for an hour before finally ending it via Sniper shot.
To SJE
Yep, that’s what separates us from Afghanistan, lawyers.
I thought it was the Pacific on one side and the Atlantic on the other.
” Part of the ‘kool aid’ they drink is the constant reaffirmation that they ‘put their lives on the line for you every day’ such that you OWE them for being the ‘righteous martyrs’ that they think they are.”
With friends like these…….
hmmm….it was probably the same vice unit that jumped out of an unmarked vehicle and grabbed my boyfriend and I as we were exiting a bar on the west side just a month ago. After throwing both of us to the ground and handcuffing us (without identifying themselves) the three undercovers decided to beat, kick and knee my boyfriend in the head which sent him to the hospital. I spent the night in jail on resisting arrest charges….give me a break!!!