Los Angeles Teen Incarcerated Seven Months for Videotaping Cop

The teen is facing an even lengthier prison sentence

It’s been more than seven months since 18-year-old Jeremy Marks has been incarcerated in a Los Angeles jail for videotaping a police officer.

Seven months since they charged him with obstructing an officer, resisting arrest, criminal threats and “attempted lynching.”

Seven months since they told him he could serve seven years in prison for his “crime.”

Now they’re offering him a plea deal where he would serve 32 months in prison if he would just plead guilty to all the charges except the lynching charge.

But there is no evidence he did anything other than videotape an altercation between Los Angeles Unified School District police officer and a student who had been smoking a cigar.

 LAUSD police officer Erin Robles spotted a 15-year-old student at a bus stop smoking a cigar and confronted him about it.

 The boy apparently gave her some lip, which prompted Robles to grab him in a choke hold and hold him against a bus.

Witnesses said the cop then bashed the teen’s head against the window of the bus, which was when several students pulled out cell phones to record the altercation.

The two videos that have made it online (posted below) show a female cop who has no control of the situation as the 15-year-old teen she is holding is continually taunting her by telling her to hit him and knocking her hand away.

She is holding a baton but the videos do not show her strike him, even though she admitted in her report that she struck him three times in the legs with the baton.

But Marks, who is wearing a gray shirt and standing on the far side near the end of the sidewalk next to a teen in a white shirt, is never seen interfering nor taunting.

However, police claim he yelled “kick her ass,” which is where they got the attempted lynching charge from.  And which is why his bail was set at $155,000, which his parents have been unable to afford.

 According to the Los Angeles Weekly:

The first thing to understand is that Jeremy Marks touched no one during his "attempted lynching" of LAUSD campus police officer Erin Robles.

The second is that Marks' weapon was the camera in his cell phone.

The third is that Officer Robles' own actions helped turn an exceedingly minor wrongdoing — a student smoking at a bus stop — into a state prison case.

No charges were ever filed against the teen who was smoking and Marks was not detained until several minutes after the altercation after he had wandered to a nearby McDonalds parking lot.

Pittman says her son and two of his friends walked to McDonalds after the excitement was over. At McDonalds, "Police cars came flying from everywhere, jumped out on my son with their guns pointed right at him, yelling and screaming for him to get on the ground," she says.

Police claim he resisted arrested at McDonalds but several witnesses told the Weekly that he did not resist at all.

Besides, even if he did, what were they detaining him for in the first place?

In Florida, you are allowed to resist (non-violently) an unlawful arrest. Not sure how it is in California.

Police also claim that Marks picked up Robles’ pepper spray after she dropped it in her altercation with the smoking teen.

However, Robles herself stated that it was some kid named “Victor” who tried to grab her pepper spray after she had dropped it.

Robles claims that Marks was doing nothing but standing in the vicinity of the altercation, which is not a crime considering police had not roped it off with crime tape.

"I was very scared," Robles testified. "I got my O.C. spray to control (the 15-year-old student) that was facing me, and went to spray him. Sprayed him for about one, maybe two seconds. He had hit the pepper spray out of my hands and it landed in between the bus and the sidewalk in the gutter. It was starting almost a riot.

"It was getting very, very wild. There was screaming, people were walking behind me. There were individuals trying to reach for my O.C. spray that had fallen on the ground. I was screaming for help on my radio. I could not leave that weapon there for all the juveniles and a few adults, as well, in the area. So after the O.C. had fallen out of my hands, I used my right hand and got my baton out next.

"There is a subject by the name of 'Victor' that went after my O.C. spray, a minor as well. And also — defendant (Jeremy Marks) wasn't necessarily going to grab it, but he was walking around me — made me believe that he was. I believe when I told (Officer Gilbert) Rea that (Jeremy Marks) was in the area — I don't know what conclusions (Officer Rea) formed when he was writing the [incident report], or this Arrest Report."

The article reveals a huge number of contradictions in the police reports, so I suggest reading the entire article, even though it is lengthy.

It’s obvious there is a huge injustice going on here and they are simply using Marks as a scapegoat either because they screwed up in arresting him in the first place or because they are embarrassed that one of their own was unable to handle a skinny 15-year-old kid.

It’s probably a combination of both.

Comments

Luc

LA Cops lying as usual. Shame

Wow. All this over a 15 year old smoking a cigar, and another kid videoing the incident.

I'm sure the good citizens of Los Angeles will sleep soundly tonight knowing that the criminals are being taken care of by LA's finest.

Good job, Erin!

Erm, the officer herself said that this kid wasn't responsible for some of the stuff that he's been accused, so why is this kid still in jail? I hope that he doesn't accept the plea, because this is ridiculous.

I read the article, and saw the vids about a week ago, and I still can't wrap my head around what was going on. Smoking a cigar? Really? This makes my top 10 as one of the most preposterous abuses of authority I've read about, even for the L.A.P.D.

This is a confusing article. I feel like there is some missing information because the charges mentioned don't really make sense. The video doesn't cover a large portion of the event so we don't have a whole picture of things.

The female officer did appear to have very poor control with the first subject but let's not just call him a skinny 15 yr old. The kid was bigger than the officer, she was surrounded by a hostile crowd, and she was alone. I doubt anyone here could have gotten things under control much easier.

As for her dealing with someone smoking, if it's illegal then it's illegal. Last I heard tobacco is illegal for people under 18. This situation didn't escalate just because the kid was smoking. It escalated because he was a little punk who was being egged on by other punks including the guy with the camera. Once an officer starts to take enforcement action, they don't just walk away because someone says "Fuck you".

"Once an officer starts to take enforcement action, they don't just walk away because someone says "Fuck you"." JL

How about when cop says "Fuck you" to a normal citizen? Should he or she walk away from the cop?

The cop was completely screwed up herself!

Luc

Johnny Law, again you are unable to correctly see this through your law enforcement foggles. This is another case of over escalation of control by a female officer with a Napoleon complex. The officer didn't need to use violence against this teen, and should have waited for back up to cite this teen for smoking. The crowd was not hostile, they were goofing on her and her suspect.

The teens were aware that the officer was out of line, but you can't because you're a bad cop.

You say these are just little punks, you probably wouldn't have said that if those were white kids in an affluent school. You are a Racist Cop. These were simply high school kids waiting for a bus to take them home, when a Thug Cop came on scene and ruined the lives of a bystander and his family to cover up her bad behavior.

They charged a bystander with obstructing an officer, resisting arrest, criminal threats and “attempted lynching” for videotaping a Bad Cop. Photography is not a crime.

This is nothing more than Contempt of Cop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_cop

Los Angeles Unified School District police should be better trained to deal with a bus stop full of kids waiting to go home. They should know and act better than this.

What if this was your kid being attacked for smoking or arrested for videotaping, but charged with every thing but?

Seven months and counting for contempt of cop is shameful. The DA should be in jail.

Luc,

So you say the officer shouldn't have used force against this person but should have waited for back-up? So officers should never ever approach someone to write a citation without back-up around? Wow, I can just hear you call the police cowards if they did operate that way. From reading this story, she called for back-up as soon as things started going wrong but they took awhile to get there. Maybe you didn't know but LA is a bit busy and sometimes back-up isn't just around the corner.

What if back-up isn't available? Should the office just ignore violations then? What if back-up shows up and things still go sideways? Is force justified then?

Look, the officer didn't use force because the kid was smoking. That is obvious and anyone who says otherwise is deliberately misrepresenting the incident. The kid is the one who decided to be uncooperative. He turned a simple citation into a major incident. The officer was simply doing her job and yet you want to call her a thug.

Be rational and place a little blame on the person breaking the law and being uncooperative with the police. Tell me, in your world is anyone other than the police responsible when something goes wrong? You have a wonderful talent of placing all the blame on an officer instead of where it belongs.

Oh and you are the one bringing race into this. I never mentioned it. Deal with your own bias before you start accusing others.

Luc

Johnny spin Law, when the officer first made contact with the teen and saw that he was uncooperative she should have waited for back up before unnecessarily using force in a large group of testosterone filled teens. She could have easily been over powered by the approximately 40 + punks waiting for the bus and beaten to a pulp. These punks as you called them could have and maybe should have kicked her ass because she deserved it. But they didn't because they are just high school kids trying to get home, not punks.

Remember this is just a smoking violation, not a capital offense. Force wasn't necessary, especially by a trained school police officer. Knocking out a bus window with the kid's head is unnecessary violence. She is a Thug and a servant of the Thug Class.

Like I said before this is a case of Contempt of Cop. The only thing the person stuck in jail did was videotape this Thug Cop abusing a 15 yr old....

The fact that you keep defending these Thugs with badges and guns, is because you are one of them Thugs.

I'm not saying all Cops are bad, just you and all these Thugs you keep defending. In this case and others the blame goes to the Thug with the badge.

So if you are not a Thug/Bad Cop, stop defending thuggish behavior by police.

I brought race into it because you called them thugs, for no other obvious reason than they were black.

"when the officer first made contact with the teen and saw that he was uncooperative she should have waited for back up before unnecessarily using force in a large group of testosterone filled teens."

If the suspect was uncooperative then the force used was necessary. It makes no sense to back off once you are dealing with a suspect. I know it is all academic to you but there is very little worse than letting a suspect intimidate you into backing off when you are trying to enforce the law. All you are doing is rewarding uncooperative behavior and that will cause a bigger problem the next time an officer deals with him.

Sorry but police officers have no legal duty to retreat from an uncooperative subject. If you escalate the incident then we escalate our force to get you under control.

"Remember this is just a smoking violation, not a capital offense. Force wasn't necessary, especially by a trained school police officer. Knocking out a bus window with the kid's head is unnecessary violence."

Try to get it through your head that the original reason for stoppig this kid has nothing to do with the force used. It could have been for litering, shoplifting, or pissing on the sidewalk. Cooperate and no force gets used. However if you don't cooperate, then the officer is *justified* in using force to control things. If the kid was resisting and during the struggle his widdle biddy head hit the bus window, then it was *was justified*. Stop getting fixated on the original reason for the stop because it is irrelvant.

"I brought race into it because you called them thugs, for no other obvious reason than they were black."

You're the one making assumptions about color, not me.

The kids started recording because the officer broke a bus window with the kids head.

Lifted from a U of Florida PD directive, as an example:

"A subject's head, neck, kidneys, tail bone, solar plexus and groin shall not be used as targets for impact weapon strikes unless the officer is justified in the use of deadly force. These striking points have high probabilities of injury resulting in death or great bodily harm."

But I suppose most actual police officers would remember seeing something to that effect in their department rules, it's pretty common - for a reason.

"The kids started recording because the officer broke a bus window with the kids head."

Let's not be sensational. If the kids head struck the window during a struggle, that is not the same thing as deliberately slamming his head into it. We don't even know if that is what impacted it. Did he have a head injury? Was it his shoulder that struck it? How did it strike it? There are many questions that you are apparently not interested in asking. It's just easier to condemn the officer without all those pesky facts right?

"A subject's head, neck, kidneys, tail bone, solar plexus and groin shall not be used as targets for impact weapon strikes unless the officer is justified in the use of deadly force. These striking points have high probabilities of injury resulting in death or great bodily harm."

My department has a very similar rule. However anyone with any actual police experience would understand what it refers to. When it says "impact weapon" it means an item such as a baton or flashlight. It does not mean a wall or some other object that a subject may come in contact with during a struggle.

Anyone who has been in a physical struggle would understand that you can't always control where it goes. I've fought guys who have ending hitting their heads on the concrete duing the melee. It was not considered an impact weapon strike and was not deadly force.

"Students and Berry-Jacobs allege to L.A. Weekly that Robles then slammed the student’s head against the bus window — a violation of numerous police policies. After that, several stunned students got out their cell phone cameras to record what was unfolding.

"Robles struck the 15-year-old's head on the window so hard, eyewitnesses tell the Weekly, that the window was forced out of its rubberized casement and broken."

Witnesses stated the officer hit the kid's head on the bus and I'm inclined to believe it. There's no evidence, however, that it was accidentally done in the course of the struggle. When the officer finally gets her story straight, we'll see if she even actually denies it.

And it doesn't matter if he didn't get a significant head injury from the use of force, what matters is that use of deadly force was still prohibited.

So it's OK to strike a person's head against something but not to strike something against their head? Suuuuuurrrre. Making all kinds of sense there. But then fantasies don't have to have much internal logic I guess.

"Witnesses stated the officer hit the kid's head on the bus and I'm inclined to believe it."

Of course you will believe the so-called witnesses. Because the only person lying in these things are always the police officers. And because it makes perfect sense that the officer would slam the kid's head against the window but then be reluctant to use any other force against him.

"And it doesn't matter if he didn't get a significant head injury from the use of force, what matters is that use of deadly force was still prohibited."

What matters is the kid doesn't have injuries consistent with what you are claiming happened. Plus there was nothing in this video that indicated the kid has just had his head slammed against the window in the manner you keep saying happened.

"So it's OK to strike a person's head against something but not to strike something against their head? Suuuuuurrrre. Making all kinds of sense there. But then fantasies don't have to have much internal logic I guess."

Your opinion of the policy is completely irrelevant. Typically striking someone with an impact weapon (baton, flashlight) equals deadly force. Putting someone on the ground or against a wall where their head strikes the surface does not equal deadly force. This is even more true when the impact occurs due to a struggle to arrest someone. You have no idea what you are talking about. Again.

"Because the only person lying in these things are always the police officers."

Given that the officer's changed her story and the officer who wrote the report/arrested the kid who videotaped wasn't even there for the incident, we have pretty good evidence of it here.

And that's before you even get to the part where she outright lied about seeing a video that proved Marks said "kick her ass."

So we actually have evidence the cop lied.

"What matters is the kid doesn't have injuries consistent with what you are claiming happened."

Nobody said the kid's head was hurt when it broke out the window. What's been stated (in the article as well) is that the officer violated her department's policy by doing so.

And we have evidence that the window was broken. Unless you think it's some sort of coincidence that window needed repaired.

"Plus there was nothing in this video that indicated the kid has just had his head slammed against the window..."

No one said there was evidence in the videos. It's plainly stated in the article that the witnesses started taping after the cop lost it and smashed the kid's head against the window, breaking it.

"Your opinion of the policy is completely irrelevant."

JL, that's not an opinion. It's pointing out that it doesn't matter if you hit the head with something, or hit the head against something... you can still permanently injure or kill someone that way. Physics, the real world, and Dale Earnhardt could tell you that.

"Putting someone on the ground or against a wall where their head strikes the surface does not equal deadly force."

And this is where you're still deliberately being disingenuous. She didn't put him on the ground or against the wall... she specifically smacked his head against the bus, hard enough to break a window. Hence the witnesses getting out the phones and starting to record. It's at that point they knew the cop was losing it.

Make up all the stories and excuses you want, it's not helping.

And still: why is the kid who taped it the one who got arrested, instead? And why is he still in jail?

"Nobody said the kid's head was hurt when it broke out the window. What's been stated (in the article as well) is that the officer violated her department's policy by doing so."

The article doesn't quote the policy. Some lawyer for the kids is saying that. They have been known to twist things around to make their case better. We have zero evidence that the officer "slammed" his head against the window. As I have pointed out several times (and you have ignored) the window could easily have been broken during the struggle. Heck, his head could have hit the window but that doesn't mean the officer literally grabbed his head and slammed it against the window as you keep implying. I don't understand why you are so fixated on this when there is no evidence it happened the way you insist on.

"JL, that's not an opinion. It's pointing out that it doesn't matter if you hit the head with something, or hit the head against something... you can still permanently injure or kill someone that way. Physics, the real world, and Dale Earnhardt could tell you that."

Your opinion that the policy does not make sense is what is irrelevant. You have a mistaken understanding of it and a total lack of comprehension about use of force.

"She didn't put him on the ground or against the wall... she specifically smacked his head against the bus, hard enough to break a window. Hence the witnesses getting out the phones and starting to record. It's at that point they knew the cop was losing it."

Semantics. The kids back was to the bus. It looks like she pushed him back into it. That is the same motion as pushing someone into a wall. You push someone backwards and often their head will also hit the same object their back hits. So what? You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Do you really think the kids were filming just because they thought the officer was losing it? Where is all this great footage of the officer losing it?

JL: "The article doesn't quote the policy. Some lawyer for the kids is saying that."

Hmmm...

"Students and Berry-Jacobs allege to L.A. Weekly that Robles then slammed the student’s head against the bus window — a violation of numerous police policies."

Actually, you're wrong. The writer of the article pointed that out. You're not even bothering to reference facts at this point.

But never mind your clear inability to grasp that we have evidence already that the officer is lying about the incident and no reason to disbelieve the witnesses... you're a police apologist and obviously can't and won't see these things.

The real question is, what has this got to do with why the kid who filmed this is still in jail, and why was he arrested in the first place?

How many replies now and you haven't answered this?

"But never mind your clear inability to grasp that we have evidence already that the officer is lying about the incident and no reason to disbelieve the witnesses... you're a police apologist and obviously can't and won't see these things."

And you are a police hater who will jump and any chance to claim misconduct by the police. You've never done the job, have no concept of the job, have no idea of the tactics needed, and have no desire or ability to look at things from the perspective of the officer. Aren't we quite the pair?

"The real question is, what has this got to do with why the kid who filmed this is still in jail, and why was he arrested in the first place?

How many replies now and you haven't answered this?"

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the police tactics while handling of the first kid.

I addressed the other part in my first comment on this story. The facts don't really make a lot of sense and I think there is some information left out. I wasn't there and I have not spoken with the DA who is pressing forward with this case so I can't really answer that question. Keep asking me and you will get the same answer every time.

"Testifying at a preliminary hearing over the summer, Robles acknowledges she doesn’t know who grabbed for her fallen pepper spray, or even why fellow Officer Gilbert Rea decided to pin it on Marks in the incident report submitted by campus police, which Robles did not write.

"Her preliminary hearing testimony also reveals the chaos during which Robles now claims she is certain it was Marks — who student videos show standing out of her line of sight most of the time — who yelled, "Kick her ass."

...

"Says Berry-Jacoby: "In Officer Rea's report of what Officer Robles allegedly told him, Jeremy tried to take her pepper spray after it was knocked out of her hand. In her testimony in court she stated that 'Victor' tried to take her pepper spray but that Jeremy was walking around behind her."

...

"Coincidentally, six days before the bus incident, Grant says she reported two officers to school authorities, Erin Robles and Angelica Kegayan, "and asked for their removal," after Grant got complaints from students and parents that the two were harassing them."

...

"Berry-Jacoby says Robles met with deputy District Attorney Ed Green for nearly three hours and told Green she saw a video taken by a "kid" inside the bus that would substantiate her claim that Marks urged the 15-year-old to attack her.

"Berry-Jacoby says she has asked the D.A. for a copy of the video, as is her right as a member of the defense team.

"But, she tells the Weekly, she was appalled to learn from Deputy D.A. Chuck Stodel that Officer Robles never viewed the video purportedly taken from inside the bus — and the student on the bus no longer has the phone that purportedly contained the footage."

...

The officer is changing her story about who did what, alleging someone she couldn't even see most of the time yelled something that might not even rise to the level of a "lynching" charge, has a history of abuse reports and has been requested removed, and has lied about evidence.

That's not hating cops, JL. That's recognizing someone's a bad witness at the very least, and not to be trusted.

Since this site only covers a fraction of alleged police conducts, which is only a fraction of police incidents in total... plus I've obviously not commented on even all the stories on this site... it's safe to say that your accusing me of being "a police hater who will jump and [sic] any chance to claim misconduct by the police" is false.

JL: "I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the police tactics while handling of the first kid."

Well, you were. It seems you don't have any real answer to the question so I guess you felt you had to post about something.

"Well, you were. It seems you don't have any real answer to the question so I guess you felt you had to post about something."

Funny, we've spent about ten postings talking back and forth about it but suddenly it's not a valid subject. Strange how that happens when you are unable to prove your point on the topic. I guess your solution is to change subject matter.

However you are right that I don't have any real answer to your question about why the person is in jail. Call the DA and ask him. I assume there are many factors involved but once again, I don't think we are getting the complete story.

I think I proved my point.

And it only took four? five? times being asked for you to answer the real point. Don't get upset at it taking "about ten postings" for it to get there when you're the one who can't answer the question.

LJM

The problem is that JL has been very clear that he thinks it's okay for a police officer to give a suspect a concussion, even when that suspect isn't fighting the police officer. This is why I stopped conversing with him long ago. Until he can clearly say that it's wrong to give concussions to suspects who aren't fighting, it's like trying to play chess with a dog.

Agreed. I said my peace with him, and made my stance very clear. He keeps harping on the "angry mob" forming around the officer. I didn't see that. I saw some spectators watching her threaten a kid that wasn't fighting back. Alas he has also made his stance very clear, that he sees nothing wrong with the officer's actions. There's really nothing more to say.

Most people here would probably call themselves police haters, nevermind asking yourself why? That cops are afraid without a fifteen year old bowing down and kissing your boots (ass). That you are trained to fear the communities you serve, that your fellow officers teach you just that. That you believe control of any situation is complete compliance. That this is quote unquote your training are all signs Police Brutality is systematic and not a rouge cop like you guys always say (when you get caught redhanded). Ask yourself, really ask yourself why we hate and fear you, then ask yourself how far that is from when you first dreamed of being a cop what that meant to you then. It is systematic and that is a problem!

When an officer is fighting with somebody who is both bigger and stronger then them, while surrounded by a mob, the level of force goes up. She was totally justified.

Although as we know the deck is stacked against whoever goes up against the police (including school rent a cops)you are claiming noncooperation from a teen is reason for bashing a window out with his head that, that does not define unnecessary force defies comprehension and reason. Johnny law you a troll! Just a side school and rent a cops are always more aggressive cause their pig wannabes that even the pigs don't want, in my experience.

Hey Bernard,

So if I put forward arguments from the police perspective, I'm a troll? But you feel it is okay to post and start calling cops pigs? Interesting logic.

Every cop I met and I met quite a few as a peace and social justice activist deserves that title. So let me just say "Fuck the Pigs!"

Luc

I see the problem here! District Attorney Steve Cooley is in charge. This guy is a real Neocon Scumbag and should be the one in jail.

Lucky for the State of California this scumbag didn't win the election for Attorney General.

I am not sure but unfortunately I think he did win.

You were right I was wrong, he did not win thank the Great Mystery is charge of the universe!
Crime | Government | Medical marijuana | Education | Prop 8 | Traffic | Westside

L.A. NOWSouthern California -- this just in
« Previous | L.A. NOW Home | Next »

Kamala Harris wins attorney general's race as Steve Cooley concedes [Updated]
November 24, 2010 | 10:35 am
More than three weeks after he declared victory in the race for state attorney general, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley conceded defeat Wednesday as he trailed by more than 50,000 votes in one of the closest statewide races in California history.

The decision means that San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris will assume the post of California's top law enforcement official, giving Democrats a clean sweep of the statewide offices.

Uncertainty had swirled around the election result since shortly after the votes began to be counted on Nov. 2. Cooley claimed victory on election night, only to discover the next morning that he was behind. As county registrars scrambled to count more than 2 million ballots left uncounted after election day, the lead bounced back and forth, but Harris has held an advantage for more than a week.

By Tuesday evening, Harris led Cooley by nearly 53,000 votes -- 4,385,438 to 4,332,596 -- according to a Times review of updated vote tallies in all 58 counties. The secretary of state's office reported that there were 154,806 ballots left uncounted statewide, though the actual number is most likely much less given the delay in some counties reporting their most recent figures to the state's election agency.

To win, Cooley would need more than two-thirds of those votes to overtake Harris. So far, the gap between the candidates has been less than a single percentage point. Moreover, about two-thirds of the remaining votes are in counties that Harris carried, including Contra Costa, Monterey and Sonoma.

[Updated at 11:28 a.m.: Cooley called Harris on Wednesday morning to congratulate her and concede the election, said his campaign consultant Kevin Spillane.

“Frankly the margin is just too great to be made up with the votes that remain to be counted,” Spillane said.

He said that a recount, which must be paid for by the requesting candidate under state law, would be expensive and would not likely make up enough votes to overcome Harris’ lead. “It would be overly divisive, and we’re not confident that it would reverse it ultimately,” Spillane said.]

-- Jack Leonard

Luc

Improper attitude and demeanor of officers toward the public is a nationwide problem. "Contempt of cop" is a form of "interactional discrimination" against people who are more likely to show disrespect and who lack the financial resources to effectively defend themselves in court, such as young black people who have a historically poor relationship with police, increasing their probability of arrest, and this may contribute to racial discrimination in law enforcement.

"Improper attitude and demeanor of officers toward the public" Johnny Law they are talking about you... :-)

Until the public learns to accept responsibility for their actions, we are going to continue to have morons who think it is okay to fight the police and resist arrest. People like you who make excuses for people who break the law are doing nothing but make the problem worse.

Until the police learn to accept responsibility for their actions, we are going to continue to have morons who think it is okay to abuse people's rights and illegally arrest them. People like you who make excuses for police who break the law are doing nothing but make the problem worse.

(It can go both ways.)

You are right that it goes both ways. Unfortunately where we differ is many folks seem to think that a police officer doing her job somehow equals a thug cop. You people amaze me with your ability to ignore the facts that cause the police officer to take action.

Everyone is quick to criticize but unable to say what they would do different.

I see zero police misconduct in this case and zero information that indicates misconduct on the part of
the police. Please tell me what illegal actions were committed by this officer.

Ok, so a 15 year old is smoking a cigar at a bus stop, and the officer feels that it is necessary to tell him smoking is bad for his health and those around him. He more or less tells her to fuck off (his 1st amendment right), and you're saying she was justified somehow in putting him in a chokehold and slamming him into a parked bus so hard that it dislodged the window from its seal?

The way I see it, that pretty much makes her a thug that can't control her anger when her authority is challenged. What am I missing here?

"Everyone is quick to criticize but unable to say what they would do different." - She should have swallowed her pride, kicked her ego to the curb, and walked away to find some REAL crimes to investigate.

"Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." ~ Albert Einstein

"Ok, so a 15 year old is smoking a cigar at a bus stop, and the officer feels that it is necessary to tell him smoking is bad for his health and those around him. He more or less tells her to fuck off (his 1st amendment right), and you're saying she was justified somehow in putting him in a chokehold and slamming him into a parked bus so hard that it dislodged the window from its seal?'

Once again, the reason for the stop is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the subject was uncooperative and resisted the officer. If that meant she had to slam him against a bus to do it, then whah whah whah. The kid doesn't get to do what he wants when stopped by the police. Sorry but force used to control a resistive subject is justified.

"She should have swallowed her pride, kicked her ego to the curb, and walked away to find some REAL crimes to investigate."

Ah she should only enforce the laws that YOU feel are important. Gotcha. So when do you intend to run for election so you can kick out all those pesky laws that you don't like? She was enforcing the laws that *we* pay her to enforce. I don't understand you folks. If she wasn't doing that, it would be nothing but whining about lazy or scared cops.

Johnny, for a victimless ticketable offense, such as underage smoking, the use of force should NEVER be justified. What is it about that, that you fascists don't understand? The simple act of mouthing off to an officer, and not licking her boots, is not being resistive. It might be an inconvenience to the officer, but as you so eloquently put it "whah whah whah". Be a fucking adult about things and realize you're talking to a 15yo teenager (they tend to have sharp tongues at times).

Rance,

"the use of force should NEVER be justified"

Never huh? That sentence tells me a lot about your lack of common sense. Let's say you are an officer and you are going to write someone a ticket for some random "victimless ticketable offense". What do you do when if the person walks away from you before you can finish the ticket and refuses to stop when you tell them to?

Do you grab them to stop them? If you do, what if the person jerks away from you? Do you just let them go since it is a "victimless ticketable offense"? Once you are in that situation, it is not so black and white as you think.

You should look up the definition of "fascist" sometime. I try not to use insults on this site but I truly think you are a moron. Why do you insist the officer wanted the kid to lick her boots? Is it so hard for your anti-govt mind to comprehend that she simply wanted him to comply so she could do her freaking job?

Luc

Johnny Law

I find it hard to believe you are really a cop, I hope you are just a Law Enforcement sycophant and no harm to the public. Or maybe you are a reserve cop and only a part time danger to society.

Judging by your many comments one this blog, you come across as a fascist thug and a bad cop willing to justify any crimes against humanity if done by law enforcement.

Simply you come across as someone with a sociopathic personality.

Or maybe you're an ex-cop who was let go because you were a bit 5150.

You should seek counseling and learn to empathize with your fellow humans.

Luc,

And you come across as an anti-authority/anti-cop anarchist twit. I hope that you keep brewing coffee at your counter-culture hooka bar and never get put in a job with any real responsibility.

Or maybe you sack groceries at your local grocer and complain about how "the Man" is keeping you down.

Go listen to some Rage Against the Machine and Rise Against and keep telling yourself you are a radical freedom fighter. The rest of the country will just keep wishing you would wash that hair and take a bath.

Luc

Wow Johnny is that the best you can do? :-) I can say you are wrong on all except maybe anti-authority.

What I am is someone that believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe that Government should fear the People, not People fearing the Government. I believe that police are not above the law, and need to be held accountable for their wrong doings.

Those entrusted with the power of the State should be held to a higher standard and are ultimately accountable to the public.

Jeremy Marks was documenting the officer's action in an attempt to hold her publicly accountable. Now he is still in jail 8 months and counting, for trying.

I'm probably old enough to be your father, you sociopathic fascist twit. :-)

"I believe that police are not above the law, and need to be held accountable for their wrong doings."

Do you believe anyone else other than the police should be held accountable? Because I am not getting that vibe off your comments. It sure seems like everyone else gets a free pass if they break the law.

"Jeremy Marks was documenting the officer's action in an attempt to hold her publicly accountable."

Really? So now this guy is a martyr for the rights of photographers everywhere? Somehow I doubt that.

"I'm probably old enough to be your father, you sociopathic fascist twit. :-)"

Sadly I guess some people never grow up then. How was Woodstock you radical cop hating anarchist?

Clearly there is something wrong with your train of thought if literally everyone commenting on this disagrees with you.

Joey,

Well you have to consider the audience. Post this same story on some other sites and you will find the majority of folks agree with me. Go look up "argument from popularity" and get back to me.

I'm a moron eh? Classy. I've agreed with you many times on here Johnny. Almost as much as I disagree with you, yet even when I have disagreed with you, I don't believe I have ever purposely insulted you.

If calling you a fascist (I'm fully aware of its meaning, thanks) insulted you, perhaps you should stop and give some thought as to why so many people here are referring to you in that way. I'm not a staunch cop hater by any stretch of the imagination, and I know there are many more people here that aren't either. I believe in the law, and I WANT to believe in our law enforcement "professionals", even though acting professionally is becoming a rarity amongst the breed.

You are right that not all situations are black and white. There are many shades of gray in between, and those shades of gray are where I would hope that an officer could use his or her discretion as to whether an arrest at that time would be prudent or not.

You're correct about something else as well. I'm anti-government (not anti-police). The government has absolutely no business telling me where I can smoke when I'm outside, to wear my seatbelt or face fines, whether or not I can eat trans fats at the neighborhood greasy spoon (should be the sole discretion of the restaurant), what kind of car or light bulb I should buy, or whether my kids should be able to have a bake sale at their school. There are some "laws" that are so ludicrous and unconstitutional, that it is unfathomable that they are even on the books. That doesn't mean it's a police issue, but an issue with the courts.

That being said, I understand that police cannot pick and choose what laws to enforce, though they do have the ability to use discretion in HOW those laws are enforced, and must be held accountable for their choices. Tasing, beating, threatening, and choking a person for something so minor is deplorable. If the suspect throws up their fists, then by all means the officer should defend his/herself. If the suspect walks away, and refuses to follow a lawful order to stop, or jerks away in the process of trying to stop them, then you of all people should know that is resisting arrest Johnny. Vulgar language (ie: Fuck off officer) by itself though doesn't constitute resisting arrest unless it is coupled with a threat of violence, regardless of how many people are around him "egging him on".

"Tasing, beating, threatening, and choking a person for something so minor is deplorable."

You see? This is why I think you are either a moron or at least being deliberately obtuse. You keep trying to say the officer used force because the kid was smoking. This is not the case. The officer used force because the kid resisted her. Heck, at one point her OC was pulled out of her hands. Watching the video you can see the kid is refusing to listen to her and is yelling for her to hit him. She's alone and surrounded by a hostile crowd.

Why do you keep ignoring this? How would you have handled it? Oh wait, you would have just put your tail between your legs and walked away. I understand that you think the govt should be very hands off. However that is not the way it works and this officer was doing her job enforcing the laws of her area. That does not make her a thug or a fascist. (insert Nazi reference/Nuremburg comment here)

I've never said officers should use force in response to profanity. Where are you getting this? Of course you shouldn't. However if you have a subject is not doing what you are telling him, sooner or later you have to use force to gain compliance. Ever hear of pain complainance? Google it.

"You keep trying to say the officer used force because the kid was smoking. This is not the case. The officer used force because the kid resisted her." (loosely translated - The officer used force because the kid told her "No")

Yet what did he "resist"? At what point did she have the right to put her hands on him to begin with? What crime was he charged with? If he was truly resisting arrest, he would be in jail, yet he wasn't charged with anything. Instead, he got his ass handed to him, and got a nice dose of OC to the face.

You say "at one point her OC was pulled out of her hands", which didn't happen.

In her own words, "I got my O.C. spray to control (the 15-year-old student) that was facing me, and went to spray him. Sprayed him for about one, maybe two seconds. He had hit the pepper spray out of my hands and it landed in between the bus and the sidewalk in the gutter." - So the kid knocked the OC out of her hands reflexively to defend himself, most people WOULD try to defend themselves from that kind of assault.

If cops can go around pepper spraying people, without charging them with a crime and taking them to jail, then HOW exactly would YOU define a thug?

I don't dispute that the kid was an asshat. Hell, most teens are. My problem with her, is that her story keeps changing, and she didn't charge the kid with anything.

Pain compliance? Inflicting pain on someone to get them to bend to your authoritarian fascist will? Yeah, I know about pain compliance. I've been taking Kenpo for years, though we call it something else. Self defense.

Go ahead and insult me some more. It's just helping to reinforce my argument and whittle away at yours.

"Yet what did he "resist"? At what point did she have the right to put her hands on him to begin with? What crime was he charged with? If he was truly resisting arrest, he would be in jail, yet he wasn't charged with anything. Instead, he got his ass handed to him, and got a nice dose of OC to the face."

Last I checked it is illegal for a 15 yr old to possess tobacco products. And considering this was in the CA, I bet it is illegal to smoke at a public place such as a bus stop. So let's be clear: she had a valid reason to deal with him. If he was uncooperative and making it difficult to control the stop, she had every right to put her hands on him.

As for why he wasn't arrested, who knows? I know that in my area juvenile arrests are very protected. We are not allowed to even confirm the arrest of a juvenile except to a guardian. Maybe he was arrested but the department isn't allowed to talk provide juvenile related arrests. Maybe he was detained but released to a guardian pending prosecution by a juvenile court. My area also does that whenever possible. There is a variety of reasons but of course it is just easier for you to scream misconduct than it is to consider other possibilities.

"In her own words, "I got my O.C. spray to control (the 15-year-old student) that was facing me, and went to spray him. Sprayed him for about one, maybe two seconds. He had hit the pepper spray out of my hands and it landed in between the bus and the sidewalk in the gutter." - So the kid knocked the OC out of her hands reflexively to defend himself, most people WOULD try to defend themselves from that kind of assault."

You can try to justify it if you want but knocking OC spray out of the hands of an officer is a clear cut case of resisting arrest. Once the OC is out of the equation, the officer is completely justified in going to the baton or taser.

"Pain compliance? Inflicting pain on someone to get them to bend to your authoritarian fascist will?"

LOL More radical political activist bullshit. Pain compliance is used to maitain control of a situation. I know it burns the ass of you V for Vendetta types but when an officer is dealing with someone detained, that officer is legally allowed to use force if the person is uncooperative. The courts are quite clear on that.

"Pain compliance is used to maitain (sic) control of a situation."

The hilarious thing: even with pain compliance, this officer couldn't control the situation.

Post new comment

Pixiq on Facebook

Join the 10149 Pixiq fans on Facebook

Share

  • Share

Subscribe

Get weekly updates from Pixiq. Short, sweet, and always interesting.