backtop


Print 130 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on Mar 3 at 3:28 PM


  (Source: Edward Nelson Law Offices)
Brutal arrest is raising eyebrows, department has dropped charges against the victim

Brandy Berning, 33, of Davie, Florida was pulled over last March after committing a careless, but common mistake.  She had used the high-ocupancy vehicle (HOV) lane -- a lane reserved for carpoolers -- while traveling alone on Interstate 95, according to the on-duty copy -- Lt. William O’Brien, of the Broward Sheriff's Office (BSO).  The incident occurred in Broward County, the southeast Floridean county which is home to Ft. Lauderdale and neighbors Miami-Dade.

What would happen next was a brutal reminder of the struggle over the right of citizens to record on-duty officers.  While the painful journey for the young victim is far from over, she took back the power this week, suing the man who she says brutalized her, and the department that employed him.

I. Cop -- "I know the law better than you."

The incident began with that simple traffic stop.  The single mom was eager to get home to take care of her child, but she also was worried that the law enforcement officer might misrepresent her actions in court.  So when the officer walked over to discuss the situation with her, she press the record button on her smartphone app.  That's where things took a dramatic term.

Here's an account of the events as told by the single mom who spoke with ABC Local 10 news.

Brandy Berning
Brandy Berning was subjected to a violent arrest for recording a Florida cop.
[Image Source: BSO via ABC]

The officer begins to speak.

After a brief 15 seconds Ms. Berning paused, realizing that she should probably tell him that she was recording him.  She comments, "Oh, I forgot to tell you I was recording our conversation."

"I'm sorry?" the officer exclaims.

Lt. William O'Brien
Lt. William "Bill" O'Brien is seen here in a staff photo. [Image Source: ABC 10]

"I have to tell you, I forgot to tell you I was recording," she tells the officer again patiently.

At that point the officer demanded that she stop recording him on the job and surrender her property -- the phone -- to him.  She refused.  He told her he knew the law a lot better than she did.

The officer was adamant, "You are committing a felony. Hand me the phone."

She stood her ground, though, telling the cop, "No, I am not.  I am not giving up my phone."

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

The frustrated cop surely was not about to let the suspect have a proveable record of the account that she could use in court.  But after two minutes arguing, he has had enough.  He tells her she is under arrest for committing a felony.

Ms. Berning told the cop that he had no reason to arrest her and refused to exit her vehicle.  That would be the final refusal.  The police officer decided to take aggressive action, climbing into Ms. Berning's car.

"Get off of me! You are breaking the law!  I am not getting out of my car. Get off of me!" she cried.

But the cop was ready to exact his vision of justice. He allegedly grabbed her keys and dragged her from the car, slamming her down to the streettop.

II. Violent Arrest Leaves Female Victim With Scars and Bruises

The violent arrest left her injured, but the cop had little sympathy for her.  He transported her to the local jail where she was left overnight, unable to see her child.

She catalogs the injuries from the incident, stating:

I had a bruise on my cheek. And my leg got cut, I had a scar on my leg -- three large wounds, scrapes down my leg. And there was a rock lodged in my leg. Also he had sprained my wrist. Touching me, trying to take my personal belongings from me, trying to put me in jail for something so small.

The next day she was released.  She was charged with traffic violations and for "resisting" the officer's order issued after she refused to allow him to seize her property.

Police Brutality
[Image Source: Tom Lacey/Photobucket]

The brutal arrest of the woman shocked at least one member of Lt. O'Brien's own department.  She told local news reporters that she only decided to sue Lt. O'Brien after another cop, whose identity she chose to protect, spoke with her about the arrest and expressed outrage at his fellow officer's actions, suggesting she sue.

She took the second officer's advice.  She's hired two top local attorney's and this week filed a lawsuit over the violent, and potentially illegal arrest.  She is being represented by Mike Glasser and Eric Rudenberg.

III. You Have the Right to Record.

Mr. Rudenberg tells the local Sun Sentinel: that the suit is necessary to force cops to remember that they're employed by taxpayers, not rogue vigilantes.  He explains:

Finding they're liable for what they did, using what we think was excessive force just because she was recording him on her phone, that would drive home the point that police officers can't do this.

In Florida, both parties need to be informed if a conversation is being recorded.  But federal court rulings have thus far unanimously defended the principle that regardless of such laws, citizens have the right to record officers so long as they are not obstructing an investigation. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has thus far not had to comment on the issue.  The highest court that has thus far decided on the legality of the issue is the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which sets precedent for the Districts of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island.

It ruled in 2011 that third parties and suspects have the right to record officers as long as they aren't obstructing an investigation (e.g. blocking an officer from examining evidence or arresting someone).  Recording an officer is not inherently obstruction or grounds for arrest the court ruled.  It says that recording an on-duty officer is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Gave and book
Lawyers for Mr. Berning are preparing to file false imprisonment assault, and burglary charges against the arrest officer. [Image Source: Yahoo! Finance]

Some other lower courts have ruled that given that this was a new civil rights issue, they lacked the information or jurisidiction to override a police officer's qualified immunity.  Qualified Immunity 42 U.S. Code § 1983 states that an officer may not be charged for actions which did not violate "clearly established law".  These courts ruled that the arrested person(s) should not be charged for the recording, but that the officer could not be charged either as the legality of the recordings had not been "clearly established".

Ms. Berning's attorney, Mr. Glasser suggests that law enforcement officers have "[no] reasonable expectation of privacy" while performing the duties that they are paid by taxpayers like Ms. Berning to do.  He and his fellow attorney after much preparation filled a lawsuit in Floridian court this week.  The lawsuit targets both Lt. O'Brien and the Brownard Sherriff's Office this.  In the filing Lt. O'Brien is accused of battery, false arrest and false imprisonment.

Despite the Florida law about recording Barry Butin, co-legal panel chairman of the Broward County American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), says that the law is probably on Ms. Berning's side, particularly given the excessive use of force and that she did almost immediately comply with the law and tell the officer she was recording him.

Mr. Butin comments:

[Berning] has a good chance of the law being on her side.  Clearly, it was an overreaction … And look at the totality of the circumstances.  She shouldn't have had to spend the night in jail, that's for sure.

The U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder in May 2012 rejected requests from various police departments to crack down on citizen recording of law enforcement officers.  Rather he sided with the members of the public telling various police departments in a tersely worded letter that seizing citizens' recording devices or imprisoning the for recording was likely unconstitutional and illegal.

IV. After Second Officer is Sued BSO Finally Backs Down From Controversial Phone Seizures

While similar incidents have happened far too often at various police jurisidictions across the country, the BSO is somewhat unusual in that it is one of the few departments nationwide that has had multiple accusations of police brutality and theft over its crackdown on citizen recording.

Ironically, this is not the first incident for the BSO relating to a cell phone recording.  A separate BSO deputy -- Officer Paul Fletcher -- engaged in a similar incident back in 2011.  The citizen's case again Mr. Fletcher accuses him of burglary, battery, criminal mischief and petty theft.

Broward Sheriff Officer
This is the second brutality incident with a Broward cop. [Image Source: Christopher Ziemnowicz]

Coincidentally, the fresh incident comes just as Lt. O'Brien's fellow officer is about to face the justice system.  A hearing is scheduled in the Fletcher case for tonight.  Officer Fletcher also reportedly targeted a female during a traffic stop.  He allegedly smashed her phone in an attept to destroy her evidence of the event.

In response to the second-straight incident, in July 2013 the BSO begrudgingly changed its policies.  In a move potentially designed to reduce the department's legal accountability, the BSO sent out a memo "clarifying" to officers that citizens were legally allowed to record them.

recording
Prior to the brutal arrest, the BSO announced a policy change in an internal memo, allowing citizen recording.  Apparently Lt. O'Brien didn't get the memo.
[Image Source: Ask Audio Mag]

Assuming he's still on the job one must wonder whether the self-proclaimed legal expert, Lt. O'Brien got the memo.

Given the new policy, it didn't take long for the department to last year also announce its decision to drop all charges against Ms. Berning, including the charge of resisting arrest.  Reviewing the video evidence of how its officer conducted himself, it found no evidence that the young mother other than the traffic violation, which in light of the imprisonment, it decided not to pursue.

It is unclear whether Lt. O'Brien has been placed on leave or if he is still with the department.

Brandy Berning
All charges against Brandy Berning [pictured] have been dropped.  [Image Source: WND]

What is clear is that the department's actions in the aftermath of the messy arrest suggest its employee didn't know as much about the law as he thought he did.  Had he, perhaps he would rethink his decision to appoint himself judge and jury on that cool spring evening almost a year ago, an evening that will surely remain painfully etched into Ms. Berning's thoughts for years to come.

Sources: ABC 10 - WPLG, Sun Sentinel, The Washington Post



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

creeping police state
By superstition on 2/21/2014 4:24:32 PM , Rating: 5
Police departments are also militarizing. My university's force used to just have the power to write tickets and traveled around on bicycles.

Since that time, they have given themselves SUVs with shot guns, assault gear, listening devices (that they used to listen to the student group siding with the striking employees during a failed attempt to unionize), a large new building, and on and on -- despite there already being a local city police force.

And, this department is nothing when compared with the militarization of other forces. Just Google police militarization America and you'll find more than you want to know.

We living in a creeping police state. Just as the LRAD about your freedom sometime.




RE: creeping police state
By superstition on 2/21/2014 4:26:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
[Berning] has a good chance of the law being on her side. Clearly, it was an overreaction … And look at the totality of the circumstances. She shouldn't have had to spend the night in jail, that's for sure.

As for the beating, though, sure... why not?

(my emphasis added)

I really hope there is more to his statement than such a glib appraisal of what happened.


RE: creeping police state
By superstition on 2/22/2014 3:15:38 AM , Rating: 2
Why was this downvoted? Sometimes the voting system here is really inexplicable.

Spending a night in jail is hardly as bad as being beaten up.


RE: creeping police state
By BZDTemp on 2/22/2014 8:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
With a kid at home I think being detained overnight may take on more importance, but neither that or the beating and in fact the whole situation is in anyway acceptable.

Also I gotta wonder how putting someone in jail overnight without giving them access to representation can even happen, but I guess that is just one more item on the list.


RE: creeping police state
By crimson117 on 2/24/2014 7:37:41 AM , Rating: 2
There a big 'ole [...] right in the middle of his quote, and he's from the ACLU, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt here that the didn't gloss over the brutality portion of her ordeal.


RE: creeping police state
By superstition on 3/3/2014 3:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
If it's the case that this site edited the comment to make it sound so glib then that's a mistake that's also covered by my response.


RE: creeping police state
By MrBlastman on 2/21/2014 4:38:16 PM , Rating: 5
All charges were dropped. The PD should settle out of court and the Officer should be terminated with a permanent annotation on his record.

If they decide to take it to court... the Officer should serve time in jail.

I wonder... I know with Stand your Ground law, if an Officer invades your home without a warrant you can shoot them dead... but your car? That's a little more tricky. I know cars have been ruled as part of your "castle," but probable cause has been used for grounds to search a vehicle in the past, not a warrant. Those searches though still required consent.

This wasn't a search. It was an assault and abduction. You also have the lower hand against a cop at your door. The could would probably shoot you dead before you could react.

All of this is pretty scary. The cop sounded like a thug with a "I'm better than you," attitude.


RE: creeping police state
By superstition on 2/21/2014 4:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All charges were dropped.

PR move. The reality is a lot bigger than whether or not the charges in this case were dropped and the department sent out a memo to try to cover their behinds.


RE: creeping police state
By Jeffk464 on 2/21/2014 6:37:55 PM , Rating: 4
He might actually be terminated over this since I don't think Florida has police unions, in CA not a chance. It is pretty scary that cops feel so comfortable doing this type of thing when they know they are being recorded.


RE: creeping police state
By overlandpark4me on 2/27/2014 2:50:48 AM , Rating: 1
Yup, and in Cali, the guy could have raped her, and the union would have sued "her" for preventing the officer from earning a living.


RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/21/2014 7:02:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I wonder... I know with Stand your Ground law, if an Officer invades your home without a warrant you can shoot them dead... but your car? That's a little more tricky. I know cars have been ruled as part of your "castle," but probable cause has been used for grounds to search a vehicle in the past, not a warrant. Those searches though still required consent.


In my State, if she had a reasonable fear of her own person being assaulted and possibly killed, then yes the officer could have been shot justly and legally.

The officer clearly used excessive force without cause. Frankly I wish he HAD been killed.

I think if every "police officer" that abused his power was taken out, there would be a better understanding of where the line between authority and abuse stands.

In older, more civilized times, people wouldn't stand for this nonsense.


RE: creeping police state
By NicodemusMM on 2/21/2014 8:58:53 PM , Rating: 1
If "older, more civilized" means shooting an officer and wishing all power-abusing officers to be "taken out", then I'd rather be a young, uncultured thug.

I agree that police forces are militarizing and using any excuse to expand their force, but what you're proposing is lunacy.


RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 12:03:35 AM , Rating: 2
Lunacy? This was a nation that was so protective of its freedoms, blood was shed over taxes.

Today? We just sit on our complacent asses while those in power do whatever the hell they want to us. And they get away with it.

THAT'S lunacy!


RE: creeping police state
By jihadjoe on 2/23/2014 1:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
Police today are abusive, and it's a sign of the times that people actually accept their behaviour as something expected, rather than an anomaly.

In older and more civilized times, people wouldn't even need to consider shooting power-tripping officers.


RE: creeping police state
By thisguy13 on 2/22/14, Rating: -1
RE: creeping police state
By StormyKnight on 2/22/2014 12:54:08 AM , Rating: 5
Bullshit. He entered her car, went for the keys and her phone and began to assault her before he announced she was, "under arrest". Had he followed arrest procedures instead of going 'billy-badass' on her things may not have turned out this way.

The cop was a dumbass. He and the department he represent(s,ed) deserve all they have coming.


RE: creeping police state
By thisguy13 on 2/22/14, Rating: -1
RE: creeping police state
By Piiman on 2/22/2014 8:58:00 AM , Rating: 2
You may want to read the whole thing and view the News 10 story and listen to her recording before commenting.
That way you won't sound so ill-informed.


RE: creeping police state
By StormyKnight on 2/23/2014 3:50:33 AM , Rating: 1
Didn't listen to the audio, did you?


RE: creeping police state
By drlumen on 2/23/2014 1:55:44 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed. Granted the cop was being over-zealous and it escalated too quickly but, by refusing, she brought part of it on herself. Yes, she should have been allowed to record. The cop clearly got pissed at the point she says she is recording. They both let their emotions take over.

There is an old saying, you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride. For the more obtuse among us it simply means that you can beat the charges in court but if the cop(s) say you are under arrest you are going to jail - regardless if it is right or wrong. The more friction you give them the worse it is going to be for you. You don't tell a cop no. Just do what they say and then tell the judge and jury. Which, at the end of the day, is exactly what is happening here. But, she still went to jail and she will think twice before saying no to a cops demands.

Lets twist this a little. What if she were a 6'4" black male? Does that change your perception any? Just a thought...


RE: creeping police state
By BRB29 on 2/24/2014 10:27:13 AM , Rating: 2
Cops can't just arrest people. She didn't break any law except driving in the HOV lane. That's not something they can arrest people or enter their car and destroying property.

This woman is in the right. I would be suing all the way to the Supreme Court if I was her. I'm sure they settled with all charges dropped AND a huge cash settlement. Money always hush people.


RE: creeping police state
By sorry dog on 2/24/2014 12:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't tell a cop no. Just do what they say and then tell the judge and jury. Which, at the end of the day, is exactly what is happening here. But, she still went to jail and she will think twice before saying no to a cops demands.


I'm all for cooperation, but it is NOT good advice to never say "No." to an officer's request. Doing so immediately forfeits several rights such as unlawful search. If exercising one of your rights as a citizen bothers officers, then I believe the problem is with officer attitudes rather than the citizen's.

Fortunately, I think a majority agrees.


RE: creeping police state
By MZperX on 2/24/2014 1:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? She most certainly should have refused to comply with an unlawful arrest. She did good by my book in this regard (if only everyone had the balls to resist illegal police actions, we wouldn't have to put up with this BS). The only thing she could have done better during the stop was to inform the cop immediately that he was being recorded.

Secondly, what do race, tallness, and gender have anything to do with this story? What are you implying? Are you saying it would have been OK if the victim was a tall black man? I sure hope not... I don't get it.


RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 1:09:20 AM , Rating: 3
What is wrong with you!?


RE: creeping police state
By thisguy13 on 2/22/14, Rating: -1
RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 2:33:47 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”


You were saying?

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

You absolutely have a right to resist an unlawful arrest. Up to and including KILLING the offending officer if it's justified.

I love how smug you're being about this, as if you've done even the most cursory web search to see if you have a leg to stand on. Which you clearly didn't.


RE: creeping police state
By thisguy13 on 2/22/14, Rating: 0
RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 3:29:29 AM , Rating: 2
The specific cases are irrelevant. We have a GLOBAL and unconditional right to resist unlawful arrest. And this attempted arrest was ANYTHING but lawful.

quote:
Also, supreme court cases are not laws. They may help to put laws in place but they are not law.


Did you go to public school or something? Just..wow. I completely busted your idiocy, and you come back with this!?

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws, duh, they help settle Constitutional issues.

We have a Constitutional right to resist unlawful arrest and defend ourselves. Full stop.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I hoped when presented with proof of how wrong you were, you would concede and accept reality.

However you chose to be an idiot. Too bad, so sad.


RE: creeping police state
By thisguy13 on 2/22/14, Rating: 0
RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 4:43:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Last I checked, the Supre Court Justices are the ones to decide what rights you currently have, not just what you wish.


What part of:

“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

Did you not understand? Because Supreme Court justices wrote that, when they decided you were WRONG!

Maybe it's written too fancy for your intellect? Let me translate it for you.

1. You can resist an unlawful arrest
2. You can physically prevent said unlawful arrest
3. You can use as much force as necessary to defend your person from said arrest, up to and including killing said officer if your life is put in danger

Now I'm really sorry you had a problem with her defending her rights as a citizen. I'm also very sorry you have NO clue how the Constitution works.

If the Constitution worked as you seem to think it does, we would all be dead. Because it doesn't specifically mention us having the "right" to breath either.


RE: creeping police state
By thisguy13 on 2/22/14, Rating: 0
RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 5:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
It's right in the link!

John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

Know what, I'm done with your retarded pro-police state agenda. I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but accusing me of "fabricating" quotes from the Supreme Court? Go screw yourself.

quote:
all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force,


Right, clearly this guy kicking the ass of a 90 pound woman because she recorded him was LAWFUL force!!

What the fuck??


RE: creeping police state
By thisguy13 on 2/22/2014 4:45:57 AM , Rating: 1
Also, since you are fond of Supreme Court cases, check out Pennsylvania v. Mimms. The Justices decided that Police Officers are allowed to make drivers step out of the vehicles even for a routine traffic violation.

She ignored that command. FL statute 316.072s3 states that:

quote:
It is unlawful and a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, for any person willfully to fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any law enforcement officer ...


She now has committed a misdemeanor in his presence and he does have the authority to arrest her for it.

Was he wrong about the whole recording thing, he may be; some of that is still up in the air. Was she wrong for not following his lawful orders? Very much so.


RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 5:04:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
She ignored that command. FL statute 316.072s3 states that:


Any State law that conflicts with the Constitution is automatically illegal and invalid.

Just ask Arizona about that one.


RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 5:17:44 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and by the way, the "arrest" she was resisting was illegal in the first place, jackass!

Recording police activity is legal under the First Amendment as long as the recording doesn’t interfere with the officers’ duties.

I would bring up the fact that the SCOTUS already ruled on this. But since you blew off their other ruling, I guess it doesn't matter here either.

The only true mistake she ever made was being too honest and telling this badge-wearing thug she was recording him.


RE: creeping police state
By thisguy13 on 2/22/2014 5:45:30 AM , Rating: 1
How do you figure. Officers have the legal authority to make people get out of their vehicles for any reason. She refused, thats grounds for arrest. Will officers generally arrest for that, no, but they can.


RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 6:11:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Officers have the legal authority to make people get out of their vehicles for any reason.


*spits milk all over monitor*

He didn't ask her to get out of her car. He grabbed for her phone, violating her Constitutional rights, then he put his hands on her!

I accept that Florida law prohibits what she did, although Unconstitutional. However that does not extend to grabbing for her phone, then kicking her ass when she refuses.

Again, wtf is wrong with you? Why are you trying to hide behind clearly anti-citizen laws instead of standing up tall for what is RIGHT?


RE: creeping police state
By thisguy13 on 2/22/14, Rating: 0
RE: creeping police state
By Piiman on 2/22/2014 9:18:25 AM , Rating: 2
ahh the audio was in the news clip. Duh!


RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 10:00:14 AM , Rating: 3
The Florida Supreme Court is not THE Supreme Court...

Laws like Florida's are getting struck down State after State, because at their very essence, they're unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time before Florida's are officially rescinded as well.

You have to understand that the State's pass so many laws, and the Federal Courts so limited in how many cases they can review, things like this happen all the time. State's get away with breaking the law, the Constitution, until these laws are challenged and ruled on.

That doesn't make them legal, or morally right, however.

This isn't so clear cut as you're making it seem, but you even admitted to NOT reading the article or watching the video. Even if she didn't have the right to resist arrest, his behavior was clearly illegal and NOT in keeping with standard procedures. Dude, he sat in her passenger seat, without permission, and started wrestling her for her phone!! I mean come on, how can you defend this crap?

I just don't understand where you're coming from. How could you so blindly take the side of the officer and paint this woman as a criminal?


RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 10:27:34 AM , Rating: 3
I can just picture you debating the civil rights movement of the 1960's...

"Well you know, the law says those nig*ers can't use that water fountain. I mean, it's the law . That officer was well within his rights to arrest him, after all, it's the law !"

Seriously you know this is America, right?


RE: creeping police state
By Dug on 2/24/2014 12:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
You just don't get it, do you?
He didn't ask her to get out. He lied about her committing a felony, he physically entered the car and grabbed her.

I keep seeing you try to argue in the Police's defense, but everything you bring up has nothing to do with this case.


RE: creeping police state
By Piiman on 2/22/2014 9:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
Ok to start with you obviously have not listened to the recordinig. He told her to hand over her phone claiming she had committed a felony. (wrong, lie)
He then went to the passenger side and GOT IN HER CAR.
He took her keys, he tried to take her phone. When she said "get out" and "no", to his unlawful demand, is when he started arresting her.

You make it sound like he just when up to her and told her to get out and that she was under arrest but you completely ignore the officers illegal activity.

You're a good sheep.
Geezz if you're going to argue a point at least know that you're arguing about it!


RE: creeping police state
By wannabemedontu on 2/24/2014 8:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
"any lawful order" clearly the order was not lawful but illegal so your point is dead


RE: creeping police state
By Piiman on 2/22/2014 9:01:37 AM , Rating: 2
Actually you said "I didnt read the whole thing" So I don't know how you can use any common sense when you didn't even bother to read or listen to the evidence. It seems to me the first common sense thing for you to have done was actually read the story and watch the News Clip with her recording.


RE: creeping police state
By Piiman on 2/22/2014 8:53:55 AM , Rating: 1
"In my State, if she had a reasonable fear of her own person being assaulted and possibly killed, then yes the officer could have been shot justly and legally."

Good luck trying to get away with that. You better have some SUPER ROCK solid evidence to backup your claim if you shoot a cop dead.


RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 9:51:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Good luck trying to get away with that.


Oh I agree. You would be in on hell of a legal battle to be sure.

But I guess that's better than being dead or a victim of police brutality, yes?


RE: creeping police state
By ipay on 2/22/2014 2:21:54 PM , Rating: 1
I'm with you on this one. I have no tolerance for bullies or law enforcement abuse of power. I have no problems with the thought of this @55hole being terminated during this encounter.


RE: creeping police state
By kfonda on 2/21/2014 11:53:28 PM , Rating: 5
If I were her, I would not settle out of court. I would take this to trial and I damn sure would sue the officer personally not just the department. I would own his house by the time I was done.

If people start making the few cops who are nothing more than thugs personally responsible for their actions maybe they will think twice before risking everything they own.

I've always been a pro-police kind of person (i've been an EMT for 30 years) but I've seen enough of these stories in the last several years to see that there is a very serious problem going on. Just tonight on the NY news was a story about a cop driving the wrong way down the street and hitting a parked SUV. When the owner of the parked SUV got out to talk to the cop the cop said the owner was driving recklessly and hit the cop car and arrested him. Luckily a nearby video camera caught the whole thing. the end result is another lawsuit for the taxpayers to pay.


RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 2:07:13 AM , Rating: 1
Agree. This guy should be sued into a federal ass-pounding prison. And if that doesn't work, sue him in civil court until he has to suck cock and donate plasma for bread money.

And if that doesn't work still...well I better not say.


RE: creeping police state
By woody1 on 2/26/2014 4:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you can't sue people into prison, you can only make them pay money. And I'm not sure whether she could easily sue the cop personally, since he was acting in his official capacity when he abused her.

She can certainly sue the local PD and possibly get a big settlement. And, she should make sure that she doesn't sign a gag order with the settlement. She should make sure that everybody knows this cop's name and how much he cost the county. That will lower the chances that another department will want to hire him.


RE: creeping police state
By MZperX on 2/24/2014 1:22:53 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that she should not settle, but even going further than that, I believe there is an important charge missing from the suit they plan to file against this criminal policeman. I heard/read charges about battery, false arrest, and false inprisonment (all true and proper IMO) but these are probably local or at the most state level charges. What about federal charges for violating her civil rights? If the victim was from a minority demographic, the press would probably already be beating the drums for a civil rights lawsuit. Why not in this case?


RE: creeping police state
By Piiman on 2/22/2014 8:46:29 AM , Rating: 3
I'm pretty sure if he gets fired there will be a "permanent annotation" in his file. But that won't stop him from getting hired by one of the many near by counties. It happens all the time. Get fired from one get hired by the next.


RE: creeping police state
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/21/2014 5:57:19 PM , Rating: 1
How large of a building? This is a pic of a local city PD building.

http://static.squarespace.com/static/503d2b05c4aaf...


RE: creeping police state
By Jeffk464 on 2/21/2014 6:35:16 PM , Rating: 3
Cops have ego trips, "you will respect my authority" you piss them off they will figure out a way to assault you. I'm thinking everybody needs to install cameras in their cars much like cops have in their patrol car, only facing the drivers side window.


RE: creeping police state
By w8gaming on 2/21/2014 11:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well when the common criminals have big guns, shouldn't enforcement department need to upgrade as well? Militarization of police has its relevant causes. It is just that the police still has to remember that excessive force is uncalled for when the situation does not warrant it. The police department needs to have better procedures to deal with situations such as this.


RE: creeping police state
By EricMartello on 2/22/2014 1:29:59 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well when the common criminals have big guns, shouldn't enforcement department need to upgrade as well? Militarization of police has its relevant causes. It is just that the police still has to remember that excessive force is uncalled for when the situation does not warrant it. The police department needs to have better procedures to deal with situations such as this.


No they don't and no they shouldn't.

Criminals rarely use anything other than handguns. They want weapons they can conceal, because they are criminals and it's illegal for them to own weapons in the first place.

Police are not there to engage in armed combat with civilians. They are there to enforce the law. The extent to which they should be using deadly force is to PROTECT THEMSELVES OR OTHER OFFICERS from a threat. If they were engaging in movie-style shootouts they'd be causing more harm than good by endangering the surrounding public.


RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 10:22:17 AM , Rating: 1
lol exactly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4KI_8Bz_ao

This is the first thing that popped in my head reading his post. He's describing the world of Robocop (the real one, not the shi**ty ripoff remake) or something, not the way things actually are today.


RE: creeping police state
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2014 9:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Police are not there to engage in armed combat with civilians. They are there to enforce the law. The extent to which they should be using deadly force is to PROTECT THEMSELVES OR OTHER OFFICERS from a threat. If they were engaging in movie-style shootouts they'd be causing more harm than good by endangering the surrounding public.


Yup, some day we might give up the idea that everybody running around with their own personal military arsenals is a great idea.


RE: creeping police state
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2014 9:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
Who am I kidding.


RE: creeping police state
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2014 4:49:20 AM , Rating: 1
Some day you might move to another country that's Government ideology is more in tune with yours.

In THIS country, our most sacred and fundamental legal document defends gun ownership. If you don't like that, pack your bags.

And calling a few handguns a 'personal military arsenal' is ludicrous and trolling.


RE: creeping police state
By Jeffk464 on 2/24/2014 10:18:49 AM , Rating: 2
You can buy way more than a handgun.


RE: creeping police state
By PaFromFL on 2/22/2014 7:59:57 AM , Rating: 1
Creeping? The USA is a global police state that attacks other countries without cause, employs unwarranted drone strikes to kill enemies of the state and anyone else nearby, dresses policeman in combat gear, interferes in drug farming operations around the world (except in Afghanistan), kills unarmed women driving around the nation's capital, virtually strip searches citizens at airports, spies on private communications without warrants, tortures "enemies" for information, holds "enemies" without due process, etc. Then video games and Hollywood movies are blamed for inspiring nut jobs to shoot up schools.


RE: creeping police state
By PaFromFL on 2/22/2014 8:06:39 AM , Rating: 2
What is even more galling is that the same generation that marched in the streets in the 60's to protest police brutality is gleefully undoing all the work. What is wrong with us?


RE: creeping police state
By superstition on 2/22/2014 4:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
And yet it's still getting worse, hence "creeping".


RE: creeping police state
By PaFromFL on 2/24/2014 8:14:26 AM , Rating: 2
More like jumping in with both feet.


RE: creeping police state
By superstition on 2/25/2014 3:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot about praising Israel (via Biden) after it paratrooped into a flotilla and shot an unarmed American in the back of the head.

And the 16 year old boy (a citizen) who was targeted for drone bombing because the USA didn't like his father (who was killed is a separate earlier drone bombing).

Oh... we're #1.


RE: creeping police state
By KyleGates on 2/22/2014 3:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, just wow. Glad my experience have been different. I live in Denver and the last 2 times I have been pulled over, I recorded the conversations (About 2 years between stops). Each time I told the officer I was recording and each time, they replied with more-less...."Ok" and that was it, no issues no nothing.


In other news...
By Motoman on 2/21/2014 5:11:28 PM , Rating: 3
...that chick is really hot.




RE: In other news...
By Ammohunt on 2/21/2014 5:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
yeah and how about that police state talk? huh? Hubba! Hubba!


RE: In other news...
By Jeffk464 on 2/21/2014 6:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but think how much easier it is to beat the crap out of some young soccer mom than some dangerous gang banger. You have to play the odds. :)


RE: In other news...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 10:31:17 AM , Rating: 2
Did you watch the video? Look at her eyes. She's not the person she was before this happened to her, and she might never be again.

I don't think there's anything "hot" about that, or funny at all.

But then again, I'm just Reclaimer the "sexist bigot", what do I know.


RE: In other news...
By p05esto on 2/22/14, Rating: -1
RE: In other news...
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/22/2014 7:16:11 PM , Rating: 3
I hope a cop pulls you over, and beats the shit out of you for doing something that, quite frankly, is nothing, and then, we call all you call you a selfish asshole for doing what you did and that you deserved it.

What a fucking piece of work you are. She deserved it? Are you fucking kidding me?


hate
By p05esto on 2/22/2014 6:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
I personally hate people that skip lines and use the HOV lane when they are alone. It's not a stupid law and skipping in line is just selfishness at its best. I'm glad this stuck up chick got taken down. Unfortunately the officer is in the wrong on the recording matter and they will get sued, but the girl deserved this for using the HOV lane. She's a CHEATER..... man I hate people like that.




RE: hate
By Helbore on 2/24/2014 11:29:24 AM , Rating: 2
You're right. She's just a dirty criminal and got everything she deserved. The policeman was too lenient and should have just shot her on sight for the heinous crime of queue-jumping.

Its like the other day, I saw a cop beating a two-year-old round the head with his nightstick. Apparently he caught her with her hand in the pick-n-mix. She deserved it, though, dirty criminal scum.

Big up to the police who overstep their authority. They're only trying to protect us from the dangers of, uhh, what again exactly?


RE: hate
By MZperX on 2/24/2014 12:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
How mentally disturbed are you to have gotten this out of the article? Can you comprehend that the brutality she was subjected to had nothing to with the original traffic violation?

Riding in an HOV lane when one is not supposed to = bad. We got it. She should have been given a ticket.

However, all of that is entirely and completely eclipsed by the thug policeman unlawfully violating her civil rights, her person, and her possessions. These two issues are not even in the same ZIP code let alone ballpark. Surely you can muster the brainpower to appreciate that, right?


MILF MILF MILF
By Spookster on 2/21/2014 5:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry what was this article about?




RE: MILF MILF MILF
By Tuor on 2/22/2014 12:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
Something about a hot chick. I'm not sure about the rest.


Oh yeah
By Ammohunt on 2/21/2014 5:30:06 PM , Rating: 4
Brandy, you're a fine girl" (you're a fine girl)
"What a good plaintiff you will be"




I can't help myself
By gixser on 2/21/2014 6:04:01 PM , Rating: 1
I only come here for the "political commentary". Certainly not tech news. Probably time for the site to change its name so as not to fall prey to charges of misleading the public.




RE: I can't help myself
By StormyKnight on 2/22/2014 12:58:44 AM , Rating: 3
Of course it is tech news. A cellphone (technology) applicatin (involved with technology) was used to record the conversation/assault/illegal arrest.


What was the cop thinking?
By zlandar on 2/23/2014 12:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Lt. William O’Brien: "I AM THE LAW!"




RE: What was the cop thinking?
By MZperX on 2/24/2014 1:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
The cop probably fapped too much to Judge Dredd...


Normally
By TETRONG on 2/23/2014 2:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all about sticking it to the man, but here in SoFl it's a "police state" because it needs to be.

Sorry, but I had to move back to Davie, Fl recently from cushy SoCal in order to move my parents and sister out of here.
There have been 4 armed break-ins on their block in the past two weeks alone, while people were sleeping with children in the house.
We have to shut down the business they just started because of brazen daytime robberies there as well.
The number one requested gift amongst friends is a concealed weapons permit..not kidding.

If things seem strange in SoFl and the police seem especially brutal it's because they are and they need to be. If they weren't forceful and aggressive the thugs would wipe the floor with them.

The roads are extremely congested and this woman should not have been driving in the leftmost lane. Contrary to what the article states, it's in fact not easy to make that mistake here.
She, like too many others in the area are inconsiderate and guilty of an entitled me-first mentality, which causes the vast majority of problems in Broward-Dade county.
Don't you think everybody has somewhere they need to be and we'd all like to use the HOV lane if we could?

I'm not trying to excuse what the officer did, but keep in mind that people here who have the balls to do any sort of policing are literally taking their lives into their hands every time they pull someone over..a moments hesitation or non-compliance and he could wind up dead. If you think the're in it for the money-yeah, there are easier ways to make a buck.

Meth-heads and Oxy-freaks everywhere!

From my experiences here.. if you are respectful, polite and honest with the officers they seem almost relieved and are much more likely to be lenient.

Signed,
Headin' for the Hills..




RE: Normally
By Helbore on 2/24/2014 11:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Sorry, but the police can deal with crime without becoming a police state. This officer lied about what constituted a felony (do you really think he honestly believed her recording him was a felony offense? And if he did, then he's incompetent at his job) and then went on to attempt to illegal seize her possessions. He then arrested her for a felony that doesn't exist, using excessive force for the "crime" in question.

Its not like he tried to seize a bag of heroin off her and she pulled a knife on him.

I'm all for her getting punished for committing a minor road offense, but not for the police lying about laws and using their authority to bully civilians. I'm certainly not in favour of people screaming "its a WAAAARRRR out here!!" as an excuse to abuse civilians.

She committed a minor offense and can be considered selfish at best. There's a reason there isn't a mandatory death sentence for every crime on the books. not all crime is equal. She wasn't a hardened criminal. She was someone who drove her car in a car pool lane whilst only having one person in the car. Not exactly a dangerous crime.


Just another donkey...
By masamasa on 2/22/2014 3:54:33 AM , Rating: 2
Driving in the HOV lane.....he should have kicked her ass for being a selfish idiot.




By mackx on 2/24/2014 7:45:48 AM , Rating: 2
assault and battery,
kidnapping/holding someone against their will, (she did nothing wrong so no legal reason to arrest/hold her)
breaking into their car,
theft (of the phone presumably).

should be fired, lose his pension and go to jail for it as any other thug would.




No bullies...
By woody1 on 2/26/2014 4:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
Bottom line is, if you want to be a bully, go into professional wrestling. Cops who abuse their authority should be kicked out on their asses without pensions.




By overlandpark4me on 2/27/2014 2:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
"to the on-duty copy" --Who rights this stuff, four year old kids?




What's with the typos?
By RjBass on 2/21/14, Rating: -1
RE: What's with the typos?
By RjBass on 2/21/14, Rating: -1
RE: What's with the typos?
By ammaross on 2/21/2014 5:32:24 PM , Rating: 3
"The incident occurred in Broward County, the southeast Floridean county which is home to Ft. Lauderdale and neighbors Miami-Dade."

You were likely downvoted for poor reading comprehension.


RE: What's with the typos?
By RjBass on 2/25/2014 9:30:13 AM , Rating: 2
Well sure, that is what is says now, but when I read the article originally, just a few minutes after it was posted, that wasn't what it said.

I guess that is just the way things work around here. I should have known after 6 years or so of coming here.


Article is a bit slanted
By Sivar on 2/21/14, Rating: -1
RE: Article is a bit slanted
By ammaross on 2/21/14, Rating: 0
RE: Article is a bit slanted
By ppardee on 2/21/2014 6:38:09 PM , Rating: 3
There's nothing wrong with being uncooperative with criminals. There's one simple way to tell the bad cops from the good cops and that's what she did. When you say "I'm recording this" a good cop will respond "Ok" or at the very most "Ok, but I don't consent to have my image published". Bad cops INSTANTLY try to get you to stop because they are CRIMINALS and don't want to get caught being criminals.


RE: Article is a bit slanted
By woody1 on 2/26/2014 4:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
How was she being uncooperative? What do you base that on? All he had to do was issue her a citation. Pretty simple. There's no indication that she prevented him from doing that.


There's two ways to look at this
By enlil242 on 2/21/14, Rating: -1
RE: There's two ways to look at this
By Owls on 2/21/2014 11:38:17 PM , Rating: 3
Respect for the law? As in this fatass balding idiot claiming to know the law better than her? Then assault and imprison her falsely? Clearly, he deserves respect!

I wish I could issue you a ticket for being an idiot.


RE: There's two ways to look at this
By Piiman on 2/22/2014 9:27:58 AM , Rating: 3
What law did she break again? Oh yeah driving in the wrong lane. That is the only ticket she should have gotten. I believe she would have happily accepted that ticket. Cops that break and make up their own laws get no respect nor do they deserve any.


RE: There's two ways to look at this
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2014 10:19:08 AM , Rating: 3
I just watched the video again, and it wasn't until the very end they brought this up, I guess I missed it the first time:

He never charged her with making an unlawful recording, the supposed reason the altercation began in the first place. What the hell is up with that?

I suspect that's the reason we never get to hear what took place before she told him she was recording. That's being held from the public for the trial. But it's pretty obvious he damn sure didn't want whatever he said to come out, and abused his authority to prevent it.


RE: There's two ways to look at this
By Fritzr on 2/22/2014 9:48:04 PM , Rating: 3
With the informed consent law indicated in the article, the portion before the cop was informed she was recording would be withheld by Florida State law. The portion after he was informed is the the cop acting with full awareness of the recording, so the Florida law permits it.

The judge hearing the case will make a decision as to whether the *illegal* leader will be admitted in evidence after the lawyers put forward their reasons as to why it should/should not be admitted in evidence.

If it is damning to the officer, then his lawyer will try to suppress it and her lawyer will try to get it admitted.

If it just reveals the ordinary instructions everyone hears when the officer asks if the driver is aware of why they were stopped, and about license and registration, there will be little fuss by either lawyer.


RE: There's two ways to look at this
By MZperX on 2/24/2014 12:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
Given the <erhm> physical attributes of the victim, it is entirely plausable that he might have made some inappropriate remarks, or maybe he was hitting on her, or trying to molest her. It's clear he desperately wanted to destroy whatever was recorded prior to him being informed. I guess we'll never know for sure...


By zlandar on 2/23/2014 11:35:47 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe cops should remember the law instead of making it up as they go along.

I'm no bleeding heart liberal but this cop went WAY over the line.

Maybe you should be asking what kind of accountability there is on the cop who initiated this humiliating and grossly excessive use of force on a mom who dared record her traffic stop.


She knew what she was doing
By jimbojimbo on 2/21/14, Rating: -1
RE: She knew what she was doing
By ven1ger on 2/21/2014 6:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, she got caught for driving in an HOV lane, which is a traffic offense and is usually given a ticket. Anything else besides that could be grounds of misconduct by the cop.

I'm interested in what she recorded that the cop was so worried about, from my own experiences and from what I've seen, most traffic stops are very by the book, cop explains, person gives excuses, then cop says sign this and gives you your ticket, really nothing to worry about if you're being recorded. There may have been something on the recording that could be problematic for the cop, maybe he propositioned her or something lewd he may have said, otherwise why go all Nazi on her.

I'm all in favor of citizens recording cops as it is one of the only things left to the public to keep cops from overstepping their authority. When cops behave like criminals, they should be treated like criminals.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By Reclaimer77 on 2/21/2014 6:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah thank god we have cops to enforce something as fucking stupid as "HOV" lanes while there are people being raped, murdered, and assaulted somewhere. But then again, stopping actual crime doesn't result in a nice fine does it? Gotta make those quotas!

quote:
She was just hoping she could play all innocent and use her looks to get out of a ticket.


Yeah you're right, that totally deserved her a beat down by 'the man'.

Hey lady, put some steak on that bruise, you asked for it!


RE: She knew what she was doing
By bankerdude on 2/21/2014 9:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
What? Nowhere in his post does he say she deserved a "beat down". Take a step back and relax.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By Reclaimer77 on 2/21/2014 11:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
Title: She knew what she was doing.

That's NOT blaming the victim?


RE: She knew what she was doing
By jimbojimbo on 2/22/2014 1:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, idiot. She was driving in the lane so why not just shoot her right? You're just exaggerating my statement in your demented mind to suit what you want to think.

EVERY DAY there are people that do whatever the hell they want because they think they can get away with it. I DID NOT say she needed to get beat down. I said that she deserved to get pulled over and this "I didn't know" is no excuse.

If it's OK for anyone to abuse the HOV lane why not just get rid of it altogether?


RE: She knew what she was doing
By Fritzr on 2/22/2014 9:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. People routinely exceed the speed limit knowing that if they don't spot the speed trap they may get a ticket.

That doesn't mean a beating and time in jail to go with the ticket. The extras are excessive force and assault on a civilian.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2014 4:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it's OK for anyone to abuse the HOV lane why not just get rid of it altogether?


Now that's the smartest thing you've probably ever said in your life.

It should be gotten rid of. HOV lanes were born out of some retarded Leftist think-tank. And cause more problems than they solve.

This woman pays the same road taxes as anyone else, she was well within her rights to drive in whatever lane she saw fit.

Trying to paint someone as "selfish" or evil for daring to drive in your precious Liberal "I'm special" lane is just dumbass talk.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By Rukkian on 2/24/2014 11:10:26 AM , Rating: 2
While we don't have HOV lanes here in the middle of nowhere, there is actually a purpose to them, and that is to try and get some of the cars off the road so traffic flows better for everybody else. Every person that carpools is one less car on the road during rush hour.

There are limits to how many cars can fit on a road during rush hour, and there is a limit to how many lanes can be added in many places. If buses are a big part of mass transit (most places they are), then they need to have the buses moving a decent rate of speed. HOV lanes are cheaper to make/maintain than rail, and can be used by regular cars in addition to the buses.


By StormyKnight on 2/22/2014 1:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if there were dedicated rape and murder lanes, the cops would be all over them. Hell, they could catch people speeding in those lanes and ticket them for not murdering or raping. I'm sure that would piss you off too, huh, Reclaimer?


RE: She knew what she was doing
By jimbojimbo on 2/22/2014 1:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
while there are people being raped, murdered, and assaulted somewhere
If you feel that way you're also saying they should never enforce stop lights, stop signs, speeding, muggings, vandalism, littering, arson, DUI, anything really.
If a law exists it is a police officer's duty to uphold the law. If you feel they shouldn't laws need to be changed. Do you not know how things work? Oh yeah, you just know how to click the "Post Comment" button on DT.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/22/2014 2:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh yeah, you just know how to click the "Post Comment" button on DT.
And here you are, clicking that same button.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By drycrust3 on 2/21/2014 8:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
Whether she accidentally or deliberately used this HOV lane is immaterial, what is a fact is she did, and sure, maybe she did hope she was going to be let off with a verbal warning, wouldn't you in her situation? What is wrong with hoping to avoid getting a traffic violation fine? Is that a crime in America?
By her wanting to record the conversation just means the officer has to be sure of his facts. If he has a "cast iron" case against her, why would recording the conversation make any difference to her guilt? It wouldn't!
If he saw her travelling several times the maximum allowed non-HOV vehicle distance in the HOV lane, then that is a completely different situation from if she had entered the HOV lane so as to safely make a turn onto another road. I don't know what the laws in America are like, but to me the latter situation is one where the lady shouldn't be fined, because she is driving in the HOV lane for reasons of safety, not for expedience of time, but in the former case she should.
If this case had gone to court, then both parties would have to swear under oath that their evidence is correct anyway, so by her recording the conversation just reinforces the importance to both parties that what they would say in court has to be consistent with the truth. The fact this officer "leapt out of his tree" suggests that not only was the officer unsure of his facts, but that he was prepared to lie under oath as well.
The plain simple fact is this officer was acting outside of the limits of authority invested in him by the US Government, and it is now he, and not her, who is the villain.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By jimbojimbo on 2/22/2014 1:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
What everyone should take away from this is if you break the law you'd better hope the cop beats you up a little so you can sue the hell out of the city AND look like a victim, not the criminal.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/22/2014 2:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
She isn't a criminal....


RE: She knew what she was doing
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2014 9:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, this is going to be her most lucrative day of work in her life. :)


RE: She knew what she was doing
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2014 9:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
Find me anyone on the planet that a jury is going to sympathize more with than this woman. :) She is absolutely perfect, you can see the drool dripping from those two lawyers.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By Jeffk464 on 2/22/2014 10:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
Put this sweetheart looking soccer mom on the stand against that piggy looking cop(not a good look for a cop) and its so far beyond a slam dunk its not funny.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By mmatis on 2/23/2014 8:22:05 AM , Rating: 2
Broward County Sheriff's Office Legal Counsel Ron Gunzberuger says:

"Just so there is no trying to read other meaning into my earlier response: BSO feels very comfortable that we will prevail in court under the current state of the law when/if this potential litigant sues."

on http://photographyisnotacrime.com/

Do understand that even if she prevails and wins millions, it will NOT be piggy paying the bill, but instead will come from the pockets of the Broward County taxpayers. And don't start that "vote out the Sheriff and replace him with a "good" politician, because none of those are on offer. The Blue Wall knows very well how to deal with ANY "leadership" that dares stand against their Brothers in Blue. Just as they deal with any prosecutor who dares bring charges against them.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2014 8:30:24 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Do understand that even if she prevails and wins millions, it will NOT be piggy paying the bill


It will in the civil trial.

And if the citizens of Florida were stupid enough to allow that law to be passed in the first place, they deserve footing the bill for her trial and judgement.

But Ron Gunzberuger is an idiot. No jury on this EARTH is going to care about that law once this woman takes the stand and tells her story and the full scope of the officers deeds are put out there.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By mmatis on 2/23/2014 12:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
You assume "the full scope of the officers deeds are put out there" during a civil trial. It is indeed possible that she may get a judge which will let her do that, and an attorney brave enough to face the wrath of the Blue Wall if he attempts to do so, but that is not the way the smart money bets. This country's "Legal" system is every bit as corrupt as its "Law Enforcement". The Manny Ramos verdict is just one more proof of that.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By drycrust3 on 2/24/2014 10:18:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What everyone should take away from this is if you break the law ...

You completely misunderstand the situation, this isn't about people who obviously are breaking the law, it is about people doing something completely legal being taken to court. The way the officer acted was as though the lady was completely innocent and that he had just made up his allegations. Why else would he get so angry and throw her in jail for wanting to record the conversation? If he had a cast iron case then recording the conversation will only "dig the hole deeper" for the lady, so why get in a grump?
Say, for example, have just got out of your parked car in a time restricted parking zone and this officer wants to issue you a ticket for parking too long. Are you breaking the law? Nope!
When this sort of thing happens everyone looses: the police loose their credibility, the community looses because obeying the law doesn't stop you being arrested, the leaders loose because the laws they pass are irrelevant, and the criminals win because the police are busy taking innocent people to court.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By woody1 on 2/26/2014 4:23:32 PM , Rating: 2
Breaking the law by driving in the wrong lane? Wow, you're a real law and order guy, I guess. Would you club someone for spitting on the street?


By StormyKnight on 2/22/2014 1:02:47 AM , Rating: 1
Oooh, and I'm sure you have sources upon sources to back up your claims... Get real.


RE: She knew what she was doing
By woody1 on 2/26/2014 4:28:43 PM , Rating: 1
Everybody who has ever driven a car has violated some law sometime. These are small misdemeanors and don't give a cop a license to abuse his authority. And this particular law doesn't even rise to the level of something that creates a public risk. It's basically a victimless crime.

It's pretty obvious why someone would want to record the situation, when dealing with a jerk like this guy.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki