Man who refused to give arrest video to police acquitted

[jbombelli]

Acquitted on all counts.




Man Who Refused To Hand Over Arrest Video Acquitted - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

 

[level.eleven]

Has a department policy been put in place and signed off on by every officer stating that recording is not against the law? Or are more people going to be arrested?

 

[jbombelli]

Has a department policy been put in place and signed off on by every officer stating that recording is not against the law? Or are more people going to be arrested?

I don't know. The article doesn't say. The police don't usually call me to inform me of their police changes.

Although I think they should.

 

[E5RANGER375]

GOOD!!!! Now hopefully the ones who arrested him get disciplined! Its the only way to stop this madness.

"He said recording arrests can help protect citizens and the police by proving what really happened, but suggested those doing the recording defend their rights without using profanity."

can we get ALL cops to stop using profanity then? wheres that suggestion? I curse like a sailor, but if I have ever been at a job dealing with people I dont because its not acceptable. some cops threaten to beat our ****ing faces in and they dont even get a slap on the hand. so until they do, I will curse all I want at whoever I want if I feel the need. but since I dont talk to the police it wont be at them

to the cops that dont curse at citizens ... thank you for being true professionals!

 

[jedi]

GOOD!!!! Now hopefully the ones who arrested him get disciplined! Its the only way to stop this madness.

Discipline just the LEO. Nah!!! I say the judge should order the entire dept. to do community service (ie. clean up the thrash from the highway) and take a college level course on the US constitution all on their OWN time (ie. no pay for doing it, they also pay for their own class).

I bet you if you make the ENTIRE dept do it no one bad apple cop will be allowed to do this again. They (the PD) will police themselves and either kick the bad apple out or take care of him/her internally before s/he can do this again to all of them.

Suing them at get money is NOT going to change the behavior of the LEO and/or dept. But make them ALL pay and rest assure it won't occur again.

But drill instructor I did not have anything to do with REC JOE messing up.
DI: Oh yes you did! He is in your unit and he represent you and me as much as he represents himself. So the entire unit just bought themselves a no weekend pass. Now go clean those johns maggots!

Too bad I dont think a judge would ever do this.

 

[CarmelHP]

"He said recording arrests can help protect citizens and the police by proving what really happened, but suggested those doing the recording defend their rights without using profanity."

If a cop can't tolerate an ordinary citizen using profanity or any other verbiage without going nuts then he has no business on the streets. They're supposed to be trained to be cool under pressure. Let's see them and their departments start acting like it.

 

[Uralguy]

Jediagh is a genius. The idea needs a little polishing but, why not? Let the Brotherhood work out their own problems. Let the entire Department, including management types suffer together. Should build up the moral pretty quickly.

 

[thebishopp]

Discipline just the LEO. Nah!!! I say the judge should order the entire dept. to do community service (ie. clean up the thrash from the highway) and take a college level course on the US constitution all on their OWN time (ie. no pay for doing it, they also pay for their own class).

I bet you if you make the ENTIRE dept do it no one bad apple cop will be allowed to do this again. They (the PD) will police themselves and either kick the bad apple out or take care of him/her internally before s/he can do this again to all of them.

Suing them at get money is NOT going to change the behavior of the LEO and/or dept. But make them ALL pay and rest assure it won't occur again.

But drill instructor I did not have anything to do with REC JOE messing up.
DI: Oh yes you did! He is in your unit and he represent you and me as much as he represents himself. So the entire unit just bought themselves a no weekend pass. No go clean those johns maggots!

Too bad I dont think a judge would ever do this.

As bad as it may sound to some, this is actually a good idea.

It worked in the military. Let me tell you, a few "mass punishments" and boy did you take more interest in "regulating" the people in your unit who were causing the problems.

 

[jedi]

As bad as it may sound to some, this is actually a good idea.

It worked in the military. Let me tell you, a few "mass punishments" and boy did you take more interest in "regulating" the people in your unit who were causing the problems.

FULLY agree it does work very well in the MIL. That first time you lose your liberty weekend pass because some "idiot" messed up. You may it your mission to ensure said "idiot" learns and/or ya pick up his slack until you can get rid of him.

 

[level.eleven]

That solution only works when you can't leave. I sure as hell wouldn't stick around my job if I were punished for actions committed by others, completely out of my control and not under my supervision. I advocate seperating the military from the police, not making them more similar. Punish the supervisors, sure, but not the entire unit.

 

[jbombelli]

That solution only works when you can't leave. I sure as hell wouldn't stick around my job if I were punished for actions committed by others, completely out of my control and not under my supervision. I advocate seperating the military from the police, not making them more similar. Punish the supervisors, sure, but not the entire unit.

We need to make them INDIVIDUALLY and PERSONALLY liable for the costs of screwing up. They need to lose that precious qualified immunity.

"Suing the department and the city" needs to become "suing those particular officers and holding them personally accountable."

 

[Denny347]

We need to make them INDIVIDUALLY and PERSONALLY liable for the costs of screwing up. They need to lose that precious qualified immunity.

"Suing the department and the city" needs to become "suing those particular officers and holding them personally accountable."

Why would anyone WANT to sue me? I am not worth anything. I have a house and a car but the banks still own them (for now). Trust me, having your name on a federal civil suit is not fun. Going through that myself right now. Based on the alligations against me, the "victim" (who is in prison now) made them up 100%. They sue the City because they have the money. If I was performing my duties when the indcident happened then I am immune (even if they alledge I was outside the scope of my duties)...remember we are using the term ALLEDGE here. However, if what I was doing falls outside of my official duties, immunity will not cover me.
Example. If I am in uniform and collect "protection" money from businesses, that is outside the scope of my official duties as an LEO and I am not covered. However, if I am making an arrest and they alledge I used too much force, I am coverfed since I was within the scope of my duties. Unless the abuse alligations are so agregious that they then fall outside the scope of my job. Clear as mud right?

 

[jedi]

That solution only works when you can't leave. I sure as hell wouldn't stick around my job if I were punished for actions committed by others, completely out of my control and not under my supervision. I advocate seperating the military from the police, not making them more similar. Punish the supervisors, sure, but not the entire unit.

n thus why the idea needs to be polished somewhat.

We need to make them INDIVIDUALLY and PERSONALLY liable for the costs of screwing up. They need to lose that precious qualified immunity.

"Suing the department and the city" needs to become "suing those particular officers and holding them personally accountable."

Why would anyone WANT to sue me? I am not worth anything. I have a house and a car but the banks still own them (for now). Trust me, having your name on a federal civil suit is not fun. Going through that myself right now. Based on the alligations against me, the "victim" (who is in prison now) made them up 100%. They sue the City because they have the money. If I was performing my duties when the indcident happened then I am immune (even if they alledge I was outside the scope of my duties)...remember we are using the term ALLEDGE here. However, if what I was doing falls outside of my official duties, immunity will not cover me.
Example. If I am in uniform and collect "protection" money from businesses, that is outside the scope of my official duties as an LEO and I am not covered. However, if I am making an arrest and they alledge I used too much force, I am coverfed since I was within the scope of my duties. Unless the abuse alligations are so agregious that they then fall outside the scope of my job. Clear as mud right?

jbombelli as denny347 pointed out he like many other leos and non-leos are not worth suing money-wise. however jbombelli you miss the point on suing them (in my idea). its NOT about the money (well just pay for my atty) but its more about making them suffer.putting them in a bid/etc that money can not take care off.

you (figuratively) suffer when your rights are trampled om, stress, life in turmoil as you deal with the issue, publicity of your name, etc. im not looking for money to fix that. what i want is for that same experience to be felt by the leo so they learn.

denny347 does have a valid point, he did not do it, he was not involved nor could stop the leo, he has no control of the leo (non-supervisor) n while i do feel bad for denny347 (in the fiction example above) for getting punishe as well it would work. it works brilliantly in bootcamp. the recs will police theie own real fast. it's not a "mil thing" but a "social thing". the social norms of the group will change if the group as a who;e knows they will all get punished for the mistakes of a few.

either the group will impose a new set of norms, remove the bad apples or riot against their leadership and remove them. its basic sociology 101.

 

[jbombelli]

Why would anyone WANT to sue me? I am not worth anything. I have a house and a car but the banks still own them (for now). Trust me, having your name on a federal civil suit is not fun. Going through that myself right now. Based on the alligations against me, the "victim" (who is in prison now) made them up 100%. They sue the City because they have the money. If I was performing my duties when the indcident happened then I am immune (even if they alledge I was outside the scope of my duties)...remember we are using the term ALLEDGE here. However, if what I was doing falls outside of my official duties, immunity will not cover me.
Example. If I am in uniform and collect "protection" money from businesses, that is outside the scope of my official duties as an LEO and I am not covered. However, if I am making an arrest and they alledge I used too much force, I am coverfed since I was within the scope of my duties. Unless the abuse alligations are so agregious that they then fall outside the scope of my job. Clear as mud right?

I can appreciate all of that. Some people are "judgment proof" in that you can't take what they don't have. But wages can be garnished. Sheriff's sales can be done. Liens can be placed. If people were unable to sell their homes due to a lien, or their paycheck just decreased by 25% for the rest of their life, then maybe they would be more careful in what they do. I'm not saying every frivolous, stupid lawsuit should go forward. But in some cases they need to.

Having dealt with the "arrest them all and let the judge sort it out" attitude in my life, I can tell you it nearly ruined me, when I had done absolutely nothing wrong except cooperate. And the dumbass LEO who simply cuffed me stuffed me and charged me out of spite, KNOWING it wouldn't stick, walked away without even a slap on the wrist. And when the officer IS wrong and the city pays instead of the officer, the officer learns nothing. In your case, though, if there was nothing you could do about it, then that suit should be dismissed.

When I was a securities broker, if I made a mistake I was personally liable for that mistake. The NASD would have held me financially responsible, I would have had to pay restitution and a big fine. Even if it was in good faith, in which case the fines wouldn't necessarily be so big, but restitution would still need to be paid.

On a related note... big judgments are not always about money in the pocket. Let's say some guy who's judgment proof (i.e. no assets I can seize) owes me ten million dollars because I sued him and won. If I choose to do so, I can write off that debt, and force him to declare what I wrote off as income on his taxes. He now owes income tax on that ten million dollars I just wrote off. The IRS can do lots of things I cannot, and will probably make his life a living hell over that much money.

As Jediagh pointed out, it's not always about the money. Sometimes it's about making the other guy suffer for making me suffer.

 

[Indy317]

jbombelli as denny347 pointed out he like many other leos and non-leos are not worth suing money-wise.

Anyone who is paid any decent wage, in a legal way, is worth suing. Cops in the Indy area usually make anywhere from $40K/year to $60K/year. Garnishment orders mean a decent amount of change every paycheck goes to the person suing if they win. And while banks may have have first rights on homes and autos, there are always liens for second, third, etc. place. Unless one pays interest only on their loans, eventually there will be some equity in those items, which is what folks will go after.

The problem here is that in those cases where the cops are totally wrong, it is always the city/county/state that pays, meaning taxpayers. There needs to be hard and fast rules on this kind of thing, especially if there seems to be a small % of officers who are constantly involved in those cases that the gov. knows it screwed up and has to pay out. I don't want new officers to be destoryed in court for minor stuff, but if it happens over and over and over again, it is time for either that officer to front the money, or the gov. pays and shows that officer the door.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

We need to make them INDIVIDUALLY and PERSONALLY liable for the costs of screwing up.

Well, perhaps, but qualified immunity is a judicial fiction which is in need of legislative redress, or at least in need of legislative debate. Perhaps it could be part of the recodification of the right to resist legislation in the next session?

Oh, Justice David, what a big can of worms you have opened.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Does anyone have a link to the decision? I've done a quick search and can only find the article about it.

 

[Fargo]

Does anyone have a link to the decision? I've done a quick search and can only find the article about it.

It was simply a finding of not guilty at the trial level; there normally is no "decision" or other "opinion", just a court order of an entry of a NG finding. It is on appeal that there is normally a decision with an opinion in support thereof.

Best,

Joe

 

[nate1865]

Simply put the offending officers should be provided the opportunity to find employment in another line of work that is more suitable to their capabilities and temperament. Dittos for the overseeing departmental leaders if they knew and encouraged such behavior.

I'm all for repentance and change, but it doesn't look like there was any such mindset - it was digging in heals, defend, defend, defend.

That sort of stronghold needs taken out, or it is only going to harm more.

Beware of those who eschew accountability.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It was simply a finding of not guilty at the trial level; there normally is no "decision" or other "opinion", just a court order of an entry of a NG finding. It is on appeal that there is normally a decision with an opinion in support thereof.

Best,

Joe

Ahhh, I misread. For some reason I thought it was an appeals decision. No wonder I couldn't find it on the IN court of appeals site.