U.S. Marshal under investigation for smashing a woman's cell phone

[Lyndarn]

Originally Posted by Jaggy001

This officer's conduct was unprofessional and unacceptable. If he has a problem with the woman's actions then either arrest her if she is breaking the law or have a dialogue with her in order to get her to behave differently. Reacting aggressively and destroying property is not the way to interact with the public. This is one of the reasons so many people are now distrustful of police officers. Wearing a badge is not a license to act with impunity.

This women was like 20 feet plus outside of the outside parameter of that scene..and that outer guy didn't do a thing..IT was a big lard ass guy who walked towards that women and ripped phone out of her hand..He wasn't part of the FORCE detaining prisoners or invading premises etc..THIS guy was just using his THUG ATHOURITY to belly bump and intimidate..No doubt what he always has done in his past...ALL police on alert..YOU CAN BE VIDEO"D beware....LOL

I hope this guy gets sanctioned and is personally required to replace that phone and publicly apologize ..Talk about "Cops out of Control"?? Those out of control need to be sidelined...Training will never get rid of these types..It's a learned behaviour that cannot be unlearned..THAT guy was NO Newbie to the force

[berdee]

Originally Posted by MordinSolus

Distracting a cop is not a crime.

9.02.180 Obstructing public officers.
A. A person is guilty of obstructing a public officer if, with knowledge that the person is a public officer, he or she:
1. Intentionally and physically interferes with a public officer;
2. Intentionally hinders or delays a public officer by disobeying an order to stop given by such officer;
3. Intentionally refuses to cease an activity or behavior that creates a risk of injury to any person when ordered to do so by a public officer;
4. Intentionally destroys, conceals, or alters or attempts to destroy, conceal, or alter any material that he or she knows the public officer is attempting to obtain, secure, or preserve during an investigation, search, or arrest;
5. Intentionally refuses to leave the scene of an investigation of a crime while an investigation is in progress after being requested to leave by a public officer; or
6. Intentionally hinders or delays a public officer in the discharge of his or her official duties by making any untrue or misleading statement, report, or identification.
B. No person shall be convicted of violating this section if the judge determines with respect to the person charged with violating this section that the public officer is not acting lawfully in a governmental function.
C. For purposes of this section, a public officer means those individuals responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of the Kent City Code and empowered to make arrests or issue citations for violations under the code or those individuals responsible for the enforcement of the criminal laws of the state.
D. Obstructing a public officer is a gross misdemeanor.
(Ord. No. 3621, § 2, 10-1-02)



edited to post the amended or recodified law

[MordinSolus]

Originally Posted by berdee

9.02.180 Obstructing public officers.
A. A person is guilty of obstructing a public officer if, with knowledge that the person is a public officer, he or she:
1. Intentionally and physically interferes with a public officer;
2. Intentionally hinders or delays a public officer by disobeying an order to stop given by such officer;
3. Intentionally refuses to cease an activity or behavior that creates a risk of injury to any person when ordered to do so by a public officer;
4. Intentionally destroys, conceals, or alters or attempts to destroy, conceal, or alter any material that he or she knows the public officer is attempting to obtain, secure, or preserve during an investigation, search, or arrest;
5. Intentionally refuses to leave the scene of an investigation of a crime while an investigation is in progress after being requested to leave by a public officer; or
6. Intentionally hinders or delays a public officer in the discharge of his or her official duties by making any untrue or misleading statement, report, or identification.
B. No person shall be convicted of violating this section if the judge determines with respect to the person charged with violating this section that the public officer is not acting lawfully in a governmental function.
C. For purposes of this section, a public officer means those individuals responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of the Kent City Code and empowered to make arrests or issue citations for violations under the code or those individuals responsible for the enforcement of the criminal laws of the state.
D. Obstructing a public officer is a gross misdemeanor.
(Ord. No. 3621, § 2, 10-1-02)

edited to post the amended or recodified law

Thanks for proving my point.

[berdee]

Originally Posted by MordinSolus

Thanks for proving my point.

Guess it's over your head.
If you want to continue to believe that distracting a cop is not a crime then go for it.

[hitman619]

Originally Posted by Gtownoe

I actually feel like the tide is turning. Hence all of the backlash. I've watched this issue for at least 4 years now. Posted about it on here many times.


Post Ferguson, when story after story after story came out, people finally realized that we have a problem. Anytime there's been a justification given for a death or injury, there's always another video out there showing a different side.






There is no argument anymore. If you don't believe we need Police reform you have NO LEG TO STAND ON when it comes to talkinga bout crime.


And these people are already rolling all over the floor trying to defend those abusing their power.

Blacks and Hispanics and even some poorer whites have been complaining about police Brutality for years.
I don't care what this girl said to the agent, she didn't deserve to have her property snatched and broken.
Anybody that defends this clown is either a, troll or a cot damn fool

[MordinSolus]

Originally Posted by berdee

Guess it's over your head.
If you want to continue to believe that distracting a cop is not a crime then go for it.

Nothing you posted applies. Talking to cops a block away from the scene is not a crime. The cop taking the woman's phone and smashing it is.

[kokonutty]

Originally Posted by berdee

9.02.180 Obstructing public officers.
A. A person is guilty of obstructing a public officer if, with knowledge that the person is a public officer, he or she:
1. Intentionally and physically interferes with a public officer;
2. Intentionally hinders or delays a public officer by disobeying an order to stop given by such officer;
3. Intentionally refuses to cease an activity or behavior that creates a risk of injury to any person when ordered to do so by a public officer;
4. Intentionally destroys, conceals, or alters or attempts to destroy, conceal, or alter any material that he or she knows the public officer is attempting to obtain, secure, or preserve during an investigation, search, or arrest;
5. Intentionally refuses to leave the scene of an investigation of a crime while an investigation is in progress after being requested to leave by a public officer; or
6. Intentionally hinders or delays a public officer in the discharge of his or her official duties by making any untrue or misleading statement, report, or identification.
B. No person shall be convicted of violating this section if the judge determines with respect to the person charged with violating this section that the public officer is not acting lawfully in a governmental function.
C. For purposes of this section, a public officer means those individuals responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of the Kent City Code and empowered to make arrests or issue citations for violations under the code or those individuals responsible for the enforcement of the criminal laws of the state.
D. Obstructing a public officer is a gross misdemeanor.
(Ord. No. 3621, § 2, 10-1-02)



edited to post the amended or recodified law

Why are you citing a Washington State Law in regard to an incident in California? And what particular section of this code do you believe the woman violated?

[berdee]

Originally Posted by MordinSolus

Talking to cops a block away from the scene is not a crime.

A block away? More like right next door. Like I'd mentioned before, she could have thrown a rock at the bikers house and hit it from where she was. Did you fail to watch the video?
The cop she was right behind yelling at was part of the the group of cops and marshals, why would he be a block away? Chasing butterflies maybe, huh?

The cop taking the woman's phone and smashing it is.

I agree, and have already mentioned that.

[berdee]

Originally Posted by kokonutty

Why are you citing a Washington State Law in regard to an incident in California? And what particular section of this code do you believe the woman violated?

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.

[LauraC]

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?