Pixiq

I need more details! He HAD to have had a reason to tell the woman to move from the sidewalk. Right???

Funny, and I thought we had the freedom peaceably to assemble.

Wonder if this is the same Atlanta cop who once told me that “they don’t like people taking pictures” of federal buildings?
Vidiot´s last blog ..My Ride’s Here

What ever happened to THREE STRIKES and you’re out?
Duane Kerzic´s last blog ..Frame

This is a pretty weak story to be posted as shocking evidence of police abuse of power.

In my jurisdiction it is illegal to block the sidewalk or entrance to a building.

I don’t know the actual violation she was arrested for but I doubt the arrest affidavit says, “Arrested subject for asking why”. That title is just an obvious attempt to exaggerate the incident. She was arrested because she refused to move. I’ve dealt with people who refuse to comply and continually want argue instead. That causes them to eventually be arrested for the original violation.

How many times did the officer tell the woman to move? What was the problem that caused the officer to tell her to move? What does it matter if she was 61?

And what does this have to do with photography?
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

With or without a photographic angle, stories like this should be reported on ANY site.
Rob´s last blog ..Valentine’s 2010

What does crying about the mean man wanting to take away your special hat got to do with being a cop?

Don’t bitch about Carlos’ content selection unless you want the same thing right back.

“I doubt the arrest affidavit says, ‘Arrested subject for asking why.’”

So Dolson is quite that stupid. What’s written on the affidavit doesn’t change any of the actual facts of the actual arrest, so it doesn’t really matter what’s written there.

“She was arrested because she refused to move.”

No she wasn’t. She asked a question, she didn’t say “no.”

And apparently the officer didn’t act appropriately, as found by the review board:

“The Citizen Review Board found that Atlanta Police officer Brandy Dolson had violated APD policies and had falsely arrested Carey.”
Michaelk42´s last blog ..OH COME ON yeah you guessed it

“In my jurisdiction it is illegal to block the sidewalk or entrance to a building. ”
I’m almost completely positive that’s for the FIRE MARSHALL to enforce, not the POLICE, as i can almost certainly guarantee it’s a FIRE ORDINANCE.

You can’t just go up and tell people what to do, even if you are a cop. The charge was dismissed. She wasn’t charged with “the original violation” as you put it.

Johnny, sometimes you have good posts and i enjoy arguing with you, but this time you’re taking on water. i’d say abandon ship…

You act like everybody’s always out to start trouble with the police. Most of us know you’re violent, not very bright, and will escalate any situation to our detriment. Could be she just wanted to know what was going on.

“In my jurisdiction it is illegal to block the sidewalk or entrance to a building.”

LMAO, now the old lady’s a 300 lb linebacker? Why couldn’t the pig just walk around her?

@genewitch

“I’m almost completely positive that’s for the FIRE MARSHALL to enforce, not the POLICE, as i can almost certainly guarantee it’s a FIRE ORDINANCE.”

And I am completely positive you are wrong. It may vary according to jurisdiction but we (the POLICE) enforce that law in my town if there is a need. We have a lot of beggars in my town and they are not allowed to sit on the sidewalk. I routinely tell them to move along. If they don’t comply, they will get arrested.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

@Florida

“Could be she just wanted to know what was going on.”

Maybe. Could be she just wanted to be argumentative and was being stubborn. We don’t really know.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

@genewitch

“You can’t just go up and tell people what to do, even if you are a cop.”

You can if a law is being broke.

“The charge was dismissed.”

Maybe she plead to deferred adjudication. Then it doesn’t show as a conviction. Maybe the prosecutor had a busy docket and the officer didn’t show up on time. Who knows? Besides, you folks keep forgetting that a not guilty does not automatically = misconduct on the part of the officer.

“She wasn’t charged with “the original violation” as you put it.”

For all we know, blocking the sidewalk could fall under that jurisdiction’s disorderly conduct statute.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

Johnny showing his true colors???

“Maybe. Could be she just wanted to be argumentative and was being stubborn. We don’t really know.”
“I’ve dealt with people who refuse to comply and continually want argue instead. That causes them to eventually be arrested for the original violation.”

They are not arrested on the original violation, they are arrested for COC (pronounce cock) Contempt Of COP. Then you just wrote the violation as X.

You can say it anyways you want, but if you arrest someone after they show you indifference, argue, question, use their rights (1st, 4th, 5th), then you are just abusing your authority.

Non-compliance with a lawful order to stop illegal activity is an abuse of authority?

The key words in my quote is “refuse to comply”. If you tell someone to do something and they refuse, what should the police do then? Put sugar on top? How about the lady did as the officer said and then asked what the problem was? Is that so outrageous?
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

Notice how Johnny Law invests facts to make it sound as if the woman was blocking the sidewalk. He says: “it’s illegal to block the sidewalk or an entrance to a building.” From there, the discussion goes off on a tangent, all in a method of framing the debate as something that the person did wrong rather than anything the cop did wrong.

However, all parties involved said that nobody was blocking anything. The news report makes that crystal clear: “All agreed that the women were not blocking the sidewalk and that the women were the only people on the sidewalk.”

It appears that this woman did nothing illegal whatsoever. She was not deferential, however, when asked to move by the police. Fortunately, in America at least, you’ve got freedom of speech and can say anything you want to the police so long as you’re not otherwise breaking the law.

Johnny Law is steering the discussion to make it appear as if the person arrested did something wrong. However, it is clear from all accounts that the police officer had no authority to tell her to move, and certainly had no authority to arrest a person for asking why they should move in the face of doing nothing illegal.

It’s sad, but people like Johnny Law really show why the police can never, ever be trusted. Even in a situation where a person is 100% innocent, when the cop is adjudicated as violating that person’s rights, he is still willing to defend the abuse of authority. I don’t know what he’s compensating for, but it’s clear that his crutch of authority is less tolerated by the people paying his salary daily. Perhaps instead of getting his jollies on seeing the cops arrest innocent people, he should see a shrink.

“All the same, Dolson’s answer to Carey’s question was “because I said so,” according to the file.”

Apparently, the say-so of a cop is the “law” that was violated.

Tell us again how a group of citizens having a conversation are just like beggars again, Johnny. I like to hear how you can’t tell the difference between law-abiding citizens and criminals.

@Johnny Law

I usually refrain to comment here but I think it is what it is, an illustration of abuse of power.

These stories happen all the time and shouldn’t be diminished. I have been witness of one not very long ago that happened to a family member of mine except I was far away when that happened that they had no idea I was related.

My fiancee was insulted, harassed, spitted on the face literally at a lightrails station because the pig police there didn’t like the fact that she walked diagonally on the crosswalk to cross the lightrails tracks so half way didn’t walk on the crosswalk. They yelled at her when they saw her and said she was “stupid” and other insults. When she approached them to go to the platform she asked them why they were being so nasty to her and called her stupid. They would refuse to answer her question and ended up preventing her from talk, threatening her with handcuffs and bringing her to jail, yelling at her in her ears and ultimately giving her a misdemeanor ticket for “defiant trespass”.

Abuse of power.

They did that with more people right after she left, give them a ticket for walking outside of crosswalk, literally 4 feet away. When all day long people do that.

The next day, when I walked there, the same officers were crossing the tracks -in the middle. I took photos of them, all 3 of them.

She happens to work at a law firm, talked to some lawyers there and got one to work on the case for free, a really big shot actually that is big on those things and had cases in the supreme court – and won.

We wrote a complain to the internal affair. They loved the photos. We went to court, our lawyer loved the photos. We requested a copy of the camera/videos.

Basically when it went in front of the judge, and the prosecutor – both of them knew the lawyer – our lawyer told them that she was harassed, they wrote her a bullshit ticket, and if he has too he will pursue this much more, forcing to judge to later write an opinion on this that would have resulted in basically ALL the “defiant trespass” that would be written for this ‘offense’ to be invalid in the future.

The judge told the prosecutor “You know it is a bullshit ticket right? do you really want this to happen? I’d recommend dismissing the case”. He used exactly those words, quietly but I heard them. The prosecutor looked at the judge and agreed because he didn’t want all those tickets to be dismissed in the future. 15 minutes in court.

I wished it would have gone further, but the lawyer was working for free.

so yes. abuse of power exist.

and by the way, since that day and the complain, with the photos, I have seen the lazy pigs going the extra couple of feet to use the crosswalk. I haven’t seen them once crossing in the middle. Interesting!

Keep shining the spotlight, Carlos. I don’t want my (future) grandkids to look at me incredulously when I tell them “you know, there was a time when the police weren’t out of control.”

Johnny’s comments continue to convince me of the necessity of taking money from LEOs who abuse power. The system offering hush money won’t stop him. Only when Johnny can predict that he will suffer personal loss for abuse will he listen. And either choose to change his methods or else change his line of work.

Lil ol’ ladies are not trained professionals, who should by virtue of that training have some developed, nearly reflexive means of defusing power confrontations. LEOs who cannot do such need to take up other work.

Johnny:

This situation or another, doesn’t matter. Of course, we have no idea what kind of LE you are, aside from your comments, but I’m curious: would you police differently if you knew that if it were found that you legitimately screwed up (brought someone in for what turned out to be bullshit, arrested someone who should not have been arrested, charged someone with a non-existent law, etc.) that you would be personally financially liable?

To Johnny Law,

You tax munching, trough feeding piece of crap. HOW DARE you question the rights of your betters to assemble and talk on the public sidewalk for which they paid! You are nothing compared to the productive citizens who create the wealth which you STEAL via your paycheck

You are a lower than any servant, lower than a scullery maid. Servants perform valuable services for which we voluntarily pay,unlike you. You save no one. You descend after the damage and try to claim the credit. Usually, you lay in wait to gather revenue from those who have injured no one.

Every penny YOU are paid is taken from your betters at the point of a gun. You reside at the bottom of the heap. You are part of the army of revenue thieves who are no better than gangs members who demand tribute. You presume to impose standards of your profession as determined by your self-interested unions, favoring the feathering of your nests and use of violence against those who pay your bills in the interest of your safety, even as you jeopardize the safety of the innocents who cough up the money to pay you.

I pray for the day when your ilk is spit upon by every productive citizen. Do not presume to believe that your sputterings, paid for by the honest labor of your betters, will have any effect on my opinion. Go get a job in the private sector which is untainted by government largesse. Perhaps then you will deserve the consideration of people who make honest livings. Somehow, I doubt that will ever happen.

Vagrancy laws have nothing to do with this situation, other than the fact that they’re both despicable.

The ladies were not sitting. they were standing. They weren’t “blocking” anything except in the police officer’s mind.

when a police officer arrests someone for asking “why” they should move, it’s a violation of their constitutional rights. The second he asked her to move she was being detained, and he did not announce that fact. He waited until after she asked why (who cares how many times, it’s the same thing as asking “am i free to go?”) to actually arrest her. There was no reasonable suspicion to a crime being committed.

As i said, IT WASN’T A VAGRANCY LAW CASE.

Using all caps doesn’t make you any less wrong about your knowledge of the law.

Wow. Jerri, tell us what you really think.

Maybe I am just lucky, but every cop I have ever dealt with – including my rowdy, younger days – has been nothing but professional. There are bad apples, of course, but my perception is that most cops are the good guys.
Dallascaper´s last blog ..Setting Up Christmas in the City

@Dallas:

If most cops turn a blind eye toward the criminals in the same uniform simply because they are in that uniform, then they are not “good guys”. HTH, HAND

Thanks Sydney. I couldn’t figure out why nobody was pointing out the obvious rebuttal to JohnnyLaw; the article itself stated all parties were in agreement that the women were not blocking the sidewalk.

You should check out Johnny Law’s blog…his latest run-in with bureaucracy is reminiscent of the mindless encounters with mindless cops intent only that you comply with their orders. Obey Johnny, obey!!!! Good thing they don’t equip quartermasters with tasers … oh wait, I guess they do.

Wow that is an awesome insult rant! I am honored that you felt the need to go nuclear at me. I’m gonna have to post that on my blog so we can all have a good laugh.

Thanks again.

The quartermaster in my posting you are talking about was a civilian employee.

@Facist Nation (great name btw)

“I couldn’t figure out why nobody was pointing out the obvious rebuttal to JohnnyLaw; the article itself stated all parties were in agreement that the women were not blocking the sidewalk.”

This is irrelevant until we know the actual violation that caused the officer to tell her to move. For example it is illegal to sit on the sidewalk in my town. This doesn’t require that the person be blocking the sidewalk, just that they cant sit. There may have be some anti- loitering law where this incident happened. It could be any number of things.

I would need to see the police report or at least the PC affidavit to know the facts behind the stop.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Bureaucratic Headaches

“I would need to see the police report or at least the PC affidavit to know the facts what the officer claims is behind the stop.

FTFY.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Hard to let go

Because that’s what Johnny’s blog is really about – making fun of other people/saying how stupid they are and him saying how great he is. So Johnny can feel better about himself.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Hard to let go

Trolling again?
Johnny Law´s last blog ..A special kind of insult

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Hard to let go

Ok johnny, go and read Atlanta’s ordinances Chapter 106, Article III, Sec 106-81. Using Municode’s library, it all boils down to she only committed an offense IF she was impeding the flow of traffic:

“(8) Congregate with another or others in or on any public way so as to halt the flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and to fail to clear that public way after being ordered to do so by a city police officer or other lawful authority.”

If you don’t like this, go look it up for yourself. The cop can only take action if she was halting or otherwise impeding the flow of traffic under Atlanta’s ordinances.
Also look at Georgia Code 16-11-43:

” A person who, without authority of law, purposely or recklessly obstructs any highway, street, sidewalk, or other public passage in such a way as to render it impassable without unreasonable inconvenience or hazard and fails or refuses to remove the obstruction after receiving a reasonable official request or the order of a peace officer that he do so, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Again, it requires obstruction. If the pedestrian flow was still occurring, then she was by definition not obstructing.
*NOTE: I am NOT a legal authority of any kind, I am merely relaying this information from publicly-available sources such that greater understanding generally can be obtained in a strictly unofficial manner. I make no guarantees as to the accuracy of the information I present.

It must be luck if you haven’t learned the hard way that most cops are NOT the good guys. Millions of stories on here about photographers being hassled over nothing; the right to live your life in peace as long as you’re not hurting anyone means nothing. And this is minor stuff in the grand scheme of things. Take a look at the feed to your left and you’ll see what these pigs are really capable of.

Yeah the idea of “protect and serve” and working WITH the citizens instead of working against them is good for a real laugh from authoritarian morons.

Mr. Law,

What autority do you have to tell me what I can and cannot do? What is the relevance of the words that come out of your mouth when you are play acting as a goon? I never gave my consent for you to have any kind of authority over me. What makes your job legitimate? Nothing does. If we follow the constitution the force you use on us is illegal, so go away, thank you.

A lawful order is whatever some member of the filth make up on the spot so they can be an abusive asshole.

Johnny, you still haven’t answer my question…

@jay

I believed you asked if I would police differently if I knew that I would be sued for any mistakes I make? Yep I sure would. Instead of being proactive, I would sit on my ass and not do a damn thing and still get paid for it. You may think all this talk about sueing officers is a good thing but all it will do is make the police so worried about liability that they will do nothing but the bare minimum to get by. I doubt you would be happy with that outcome.

Johnny Law once again assumes that the police report or the affidavit is “the facts.” Of course, we know that he’ll claim those police documents to be the truth even when audio/video proves them to be complete lies – as he did in the episode when cop sodomized a man with his tazer.

Johnny, when are you going to learn that the world is much bigger than what you think it is? Are you capable of even admitting the possibility that the cop arrested the woman merely for asking “why”? Or will that cause your brain to meltdown?

No problem. Just keep in mind that you should train yourself in these interactions with Jonny Law to apply them to regular, everyday interactions with the police. The way they frame things isn’t the way it is, or has to be. They’re playing a game when they push you around for doing nothing illegal. I’m sure Johnny does it all the time and probably doesn’t even realize it.

“Instead of being proactive, I would sit on my ass and not do a damn thing and still get paid for it. ”

How, exactly, is that any different from what happens today? When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

An armed society is a police society. People can depend on themselves for their own protection, for the most part. I’m really not so sure that the police are necessary, at least in the idea that they would PREVENT crimes. They certainly don’t do that. Investigations? Fine. But there’s nothing that a patrol officer does that couldn’t be handled by a security guard or an armed citizenry.

I agree, police forces should be private, not an armed gang of mafia run by the state like they currently are. Right now police are the biggest gang in the US, an armed group of thugs intent on protecting their turf. Someone breaks into my home I will not pick up the phone and call 911 dial a prayer, I will pick up my gun and kill whomever thought it was their right to break into my home.

The only thing cops are good for is drawing chalk outlines around dead bodies, and generating revenue for the state, oh, and bullying people. I have never heard of a cop taking a bullet for an unarmed innocent, never heard of a cop diving into the path of a bullet to save a childs life, I never will hear that kind of story about a member of the filth.
Jody´s last blog ..Arizona speed cameras incite a mini revolt

I’ve noticed around here that there are hundreds of ridiculous municipal ordinances (municipal criminal code). They have no other purpose than to “give the cops tools” to arrest people that aren’t breaking state (ie serious) laws. They also are prosecuted by the mayor’s political appointed city attorney, rather than the state district attorney. That’s a prime reason I live in the county, where we generally have only state laws (county codes mostly deal with zoning, etc.). I’ve talked many times to our deputy sheriffs and they say the same thing. It’s a big difference, at least around here. Your results will of course vary widely depending on the state you live in. Larger cities are worse, as they have more of these ordinances.

“I also post comments on a couple of anti-cop blogs when they go off the rails on their rantings against the police. This usually brings me a number of insults about my character, suitability to be a police officer, and my manhood. It doesn’t bother me what a bunch internet heroes think about me.”

Ah, I see. You’ll keep saying this is an anti-cop blog and then proceed to take a shit on everyone who comments here. It’s all the “bunch internet heroes” against you!

Many of whom aren’t anonymous, like you… cowardly bastards, hiding behind their real names!

Lulz! As I said before, shorter Johnny Law: “Everyone else is dumb and wrong, and I’m right and really smart!”

Keep diggin’, Johnny. Your ability to spread FUD here is pretty much over with.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Hard to let go

@ J Law
“How about the lady did as the officer said and then asked what the problem was? Is that so outrageous?”
What is outrageous is a pig cop telling three elderly women talking on a sidewalk about funeral arrangements to “move it”

I guess ‘Please move along, you’re blocking the sidewalk’ was out of the question. Or even a more stern, ‘You must move along now, you’re blocking the sidewalk.’ But either of those contain far mor syllables than a simple ‘move it’ and perhaps were just too much for this LEO to utter all at once.

I just posted an annonymous comment on J Law’s website in defence of Carlos Miller, so I figured that I would post one here in defence of J Law.

While abuse of authority is terrible, and it certaintly does happen, sometimes, if not most of the time, I think it happens because of the attitude of the person, not the cop. I have a belief, completely unable to be substantiated, that about 75% of cops are amazing professionals. They become cops for all the right reasons, and they endure everything they are called upon to endure with endless grace and professionalism. About 20% of cops are good, but not great. Perhaps they are not cops for the right reasons, perhaps the everyday strain of dealing with the shit end of society has hardened them to some extent, or perhaps they are just not very good at their job. About 5% of cops are terrible, horrible people who have no business whatsoever being cops. Before being cops, cops are people. If you look at the breakdown that I sort of roughly figure, I think cops compare incredibly favorably with the general population.

As I said, I think situations are most often determined by the actions of the citizen. If you are dealing with the 5%, maybe not, but otherwise, yes. I have had cops that helped me out in very difficult circumstances where I did no wrong. Once, I was laying in a snow bank after breaking a leg, and they saw me while driving by. I could have literally frozen to death without their vigilance. On another occasion, a drunk tried to hit me for no apparent reason. Because a cop was there, he got to fight, and I did not have to. There have been other circumstances where I have been in the wrong, but the police talked to me and let me go. I was respectful.

I strongly feel that most of Carlos’ blogs are about the 5% of cops that are just bad people. I also feel that J Law is one of the 75% who is probably thoughtful, hardworking, and understanding. He comes here and offers a voice of reason and restraint. I often disagree with him. But he is somewhat reasonable, and very restrained.

Unfortunately, many comments here get completely unrestrained. They do not meet his thoughts with a similar level of force. People are quick to question his integrity, his intelligence, and his ability. That is sad. If you are a commenter who has problems with the police, perhaps you should examine how quickly you get personal with police.

J Law is just a man. He is a man that I disagree with often. But he is a man that provides a service that is both difficult and essential. At the very least, you should respect him for that. He wants to enter the debate, not stuff a taser up your ass. Isnt that the type of man the commenters want as a cop?

Sorry if I got a little long winded, but J Law should not be as vilified as he is in these comments for merely formulating an opinion. As the new banner for this site is “shining a light on first amendment, media, and police issues,” perhaps the commenters here should take a little more time to respect the first amendment rights of J Law. At least respect the service that he has/will provide this country. At least respect him as a man.

Craig if you think 75% of cops are ROTFLMAO “amazing professionals” I can safely say you’ve never lived on the east coast. Not only that but I would bet you grew up in a rural area with few cops. I don’t mean to be disrespectful but frankly I see your views as coming from someone who’s somewhat naive. Take a look at the rolling feed to your left. If 75% of cops are such good honest people, then how is so much bad stuff going on in within their ranks? I don’t think anyone here has disrespected Johnny Law anymore then he has disrespected victims of police misconduct–see the Idaho taser post.

No one’s trying to shut down his blog, so there’s no disrespecting first amendment rights. Respecting first amendment rights doesn’t mean respecting the content of the message, after all.

“He wants to enter the debate, not stuff a taser up your ass. Isnt that the type of man the commenters want as a cop?”

Carlos and most of the people commenting on the site are about standing up for people’s rights, questioning abuse of authority and educating people about their rights.

Johnny isn’t entering the debate. Johnny’s here to be the anonymous voice of authority, and it seems he’s pretty intent on defending authority at every turn, and spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about points other commenters bring up in defense of people’s rights.

Carlos and many regular commenters frequently make statements about people’s rights that Johnny tries to claim are incorrect. He won’t sway any of us regulars, but the people he can get to are the lurkers who think that maybe, just maybe that guy who claims to be a cop is and maybe he might be right, and it’s safer anyway to listen to him even if he’s wrong…

I doubt he’s consciously worked this out on his own, mind you.

In any case, I think we have a duty to call him on his shit.

And I don’t respect Johnny Law, but that’s because he’s already proven to be narcisstic, hateful little man that doesn’t have any respect for people he doesn’t agree with. He gets back what he puts out.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Hard to let go