U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-23-2015, 03:39 AM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,444,848 times
Reputation: 7702

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee View Post
Other than already having a window to the WA state statutes open, I was responding to a generic statement with a generic states law.

The following is the obstruction statute for CA.

CA.
PENAL CODE
SECTION 142-181

148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or
obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical
technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)
of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to
discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other
punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail
not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.


The following is only my opinion..
The parts that I believe the woman may have violated were - 'willfully resists' (the cop may have asked her to move back out of the way, which she refused to do--willfully resisting), and, 'obstructed' him from his duty (as seen in the video the cop had to take his eyes off of the scene, which he probably was instructed to keep his eyes on it by his superior, so he could keep an eye on her since he didn't know if she was a threat or not--obstructing him from his duty). I don't know if she 'delayed' him, though, right after that marshal did what he did then the cop was seen moving toward the scene. It 'may' be possible that she'd delayed him, he had to stay there instead of going to the scene because of her, but I don't know.

Also just my opinion..
That particular cop that she was standing near and yelling at did nothing wrong towards her. The one at fault was the marshal, and I doubt, though I could be wrong, that particular cop had suggested the marshal rush the woman, grab her phone and smash it...if he'd wanted that done he probably would have done it himself long before the marshal walked by. Obstruction would probably had been an easy charge for that cop to make, but that particular cop (I'm talking about the cop, not the marshal) appeared to be letting her slide on it.
Six people at that incident were arrested. She was not one of them.

Everyone is innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law, and she has not even been charged with any crime, and there is a zero chance that she will be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2015, 05:23 AM
 
17,336 posts, read 14,859,212 times
Reputation: 32948
I saw her on the news last night...I am so glad she turned out to be upper middle class suburban mom rather than associated with the bikers (which I originally assumed). She is going to have more credibility than the cops in this instance, which is how it should be...that cop seriously overstepped bounds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 05:52 AM
 
11,759 posts, read 5,215,053 times
Reputation: 7964
Why are people posting state or municipal statutes? They don't matter because such laws get trumped by the U.S. Constitution, thanks to the Supremacy Clause. Numerous courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled that the First Amendment allows you to videotape the cops in public as long as you are not in the way. NYC went out of their way to expressly remind their officers of this right.

Here is a link to a Heritage Foundation article on this. I know many of you find that organization credible, as it is not a part of "lame stream media." Hahaha, funny. Filming the Watchmen: Why the First Amendment Protects Your Right to Film the Police in Public Places

Besides, doesn't this dude realize that the static memory chips in these phones are very hard to destroy even if you smash the phone, and that someone else is taping you smashing that first phone. Duh.

Mick
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 08:06 AM
 
15,203 posts, read 16,066,291 times
Reputation: 25127
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee View Post
Other than already having a window to the WA state statutes open, I was responding to a generic statement with a generic states law.

The following is the obstruction statute for CA.

CA.
PENAL CODE
SECTION 142-181

148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or
obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical
technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797)
of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to
discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other
punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail
not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.


The following is only my opinion..
The parts that I believe the woman may have violated were - 'willfully resists' (the cop may have asked her to move back out of the way, which she refused to do--willfully resisting), and, 'obstructed' him from his duty (as seen in the video the cop had to take his eyes off of the scene, which he probably was instructed to keep his eyes on it by his superior, so he could keep an eye on her since he didn't know if she was a threat or not--obstructing him from his duty). I don't know if she 'delayed' him, though, right after that marshal did what he did then the cop was seen moving toward the scene. It 'may' be possible that she'd delayed him, he had to stay there instead of going to the scene because of her, but I don't know.

Also just my opinion..
That particular cop that she was standing near and yelling at did nothing wrong towards her. The one at fault was the marshal, and I doubt, though I could be wrong, that particular cop had suggested the marshal rush the woman, grab her phone and smash it...if he'd wanted that done he probably would have done it himself long before the marshal walked by. Obstruction would probably had been an easy charge for that cop to make, but that particular cop (I'm talking about the cop, not the marshal) appeared to be letting her slide on it.
Clearly, your opinion differs with those of the LEO's at the scene because the woman wasn't arrested. If they'd thought she was interfering, they could have arrested her. The DA would have reviewed the facts and she could have had a trial. That's how law enforcement is supposed to work.

But we keep seeing LEO's who ignore the due process rights of people and take it upon themselves to be arrest, try and punish all at the same time. If you don't have a problem with that, you don't have much respect for the U.S. Constitution and the individual rights it was designed to protect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 09:29 AM
 
Location: La Mesa Aka The Table
7,192 posts, read 7,529,759 times
Reputation: 7993
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
The marshall should have hit her over the head with it for getting in the way. What's the difference between her and a pain in the a** TV reporter?
I'm fine with the officer arresting her, but breaking her property is going way to far.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 01:48 PM
 
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
5,253 posts, read 4,793,210 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
I saw her on the news last night...I am so glad she turned out to be upper middle class suburban mom rather than associated with the bikers (which I originally assumed). She is going to have more credibility than the cops in this instance, which is how it should be...that cop seriously overstepped bounds.
It was originally hard to tell if she was associated with the biker gang. It's hard to understand a lot of what she's saying from the onlookers vid., but apparently she was demanding that the cops leave because they made her nervous and because of the children that live in the neighborhood. I found it odd that she'd rather have a known violent druggie biker gang living around herself and those children rather than seeing the cops pick them up. If she's smart, if she rescues the chip from her phone she won't turn it over or place it on you tube, and, she should remove the one you tube vid that she already has up (where she mentions having ties to a cop hate group).

The cop that she was badgering treated her fairly--basically ignoring her rant though keeping an eye on her. The marshal that showed up at the end is the one who seriously overstepped the bounds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 02:02 PM
 
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
5,253 posts, read 4,793,210 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000 View Post
Why are people posting state or municipal statutes? They don't matter because such laws get trumped by the U.S. Constitution, thanks to the Supremacy Clause. Numerous courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled that the First Amendment allows you to videotape the cops in public as long as you are not in the way. NYC went out of their way to expressly remind their officers of this right.

Here is a link to a Heritage Foundation article on this. I know many of you find that organization credible, as it is not a part of "lame stream media." Hahaha, funny. Filming the Watchmen: Why the First Amendment Protects Your Right to Film the Police in Public Places

Besides, doesn't this dude realize that the static memory chips in these phones are very hard to destroy even if you smash the phone, and that someone else is taping you smashing that first phone. Duh.

Mick
I don't remember seeing anyone posting the taping/wiretapping laws for CA.The US Circuit Court that covers CA is the Ninth (and no other), which does allow taping of cops and other government officials. But, taping (non-official) citizens does go by CA law and it is against CA law to tape a (non-official) citizen unless the citizen gives their consent to be taped.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 02:18 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
13,124 posts, read 17,674,374 times
Reputation: 22501
yes this us marshall did overstep his authority and needs to be gone or demoted and put somewhere else because destruction of property is a big deal and as far as Im concerned he needs to replace her phone and apologize to her for losing his temper and not controlling himself any better than what he demonstrated . Im sorry but cops are going overboard these days and someone has got to get them in check . I think his superiors really need to rethink his employment with their department . This lady did nothing wrong other than film what was going on . All these posters on here backing the cops need to quit because every night in the news the cops are killing people or shooting or maiming them and for what ? walking down the street is now a crime ? I believe in civil liberties and in case some of you have not been paying attention our government is trying to take those away from us. For God sake people wake up and smell the coffee .....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 02:22 PM
 
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
5,253 posts, read 4,793,210 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
Clearly, your opinion differs with those of the LEO's at the scene because the woman wasn't arrested. If they'd thought she was interfering, they could have arrested her. The DA would have reviewed the facts and she could have had a trial. That's how law enforcement is supposed to work.
Yes that cop "could" have probably arrested her but he didn't. Not arresting/or ticketing her was probably a judgement call by the cop that she was harassing. Cops do have the leeway to make those judgement calls for infractions. (I'm talking about the cop that she had been standing behind and yelling at, not about the marshal that had smashed her phone)

Quote:
But we keep seeing LEO's who ignore the due process rights of people and take it upon themselves to be arrest, try and punish all at the same time. If you don't have a problem with that, you don't have much respect for the U.S. Constitution and the individual rights it was designed to protect.
Where did I state that I don't have a problem with that? Is it because of my opinion that she did violate the obstruction law? Sorry but I do feel that she had, and, that the cop had let her slide on it (which I also felt was nice of the cop to do). In case you missed it, I had also stated that it was wrong for the marshal to charge at her and smash her phone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 02:31 PM
 
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
5,253 posts, read 4,793,210 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by phonelady61 View Post
yes this us marshall did overstep his authority and needs to be gone or demoted and put somewhere else because destruction of property is a big deal and as far as Im concerned he needs to replace her phone and apologize to her for losing his temper and not controlling himself any better than what he demonstrated . Im sorry but cops are going overboard these days and someone has got to get them in check . I think his superiors really need to rethink his employment with their department . This lady did nothing wrong other than film what was going on . All these posters on here backing the cops need to quit because every night in the news the cops are killing people or shooting or maiming them and for what ? walking down the street is now a crime ? I believe in civil liberties and in case some of you have not been paying attention our government is trying to take those away from us. For God sake people wake up and smell the coffee .....
I agree the marshal was in the wrong and should pay for it, one way or another (ideally out of his own pocket and lose his job). And, she will probably win her suit against the marshals office, and the marshal, and collect a nice chunk of change from the CA taxpayers.

But as for the cop that she'd been standing behind and yelling at, what did he do that had wronged her? Nothing as far as what I saw on the tape.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top