This case is similar for the aggressive manner of the officer, the sense of entitlement to harass, the domineering and arbitrary power, lack of probable cause, and the intent and willingness to concoct completely false charges. Fortunately for the driver, a previous abuse of his civil rights led him to install a continuously running video camera in his car. You can read the dialog and view the video here:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp
Friday, September 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Once again Stephen please go and read the Civil Rights act....You seem to be use it as a label too often....
Civil Rights and the Civil Rights Act(s) are not the same thing. I speak of Civil Rights. If you assume I also mean a specific Civil Rights Act it is a mistaken assumption, though there may be similar principles. Society recognizes a need, a principle of fairness, long before the cogs of judicial and legislative processes manage to get it into writing, let alone action. The people always know first. Eventually case law comes to recognize what has been there all along.
But how can one sue for violation of civil rights if there is no code to go by? Hence the ACLU wanting to get involved? Please explain.
Going through the comments throughout this blog, I'm astounded how many people think that no one should question a policeman, asking why they are being stopped, what they are doing wrong, etc. It IS our constitutional right. I'd advise those for whom this constitutional right is NOT important to buy a one way ticket to the nearest police state. Maybe Iran? Russia? Burma?
I agree with the last comment, but I think for the most part the attacks are from low-level law enforcement types.
So...Just curious...It is our constitutional right to ride a bike where we aren't supposed to...Hmm.....cool...I'm going riding on 35W......
Here are two of the applicable Constitutional rights:
U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights Amendment VIII:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
---
The above, with the district court transcript, is more than ample for the ACLU to formulate its arguments. They may also choose to elaborate with case law. The police were in clear violation of both of the above, as I had violated no law and they had no probable cause for assault and arrest (to repeat, the signs prohibiting bicycles were put up 4 months *after* the incident. You can't be prosecuted for something that is not yet illegal. Can you imagine such a society? Anyone is locked up for any reason because it *might* be illegal at a future date?)
The Bill of Rights as law should trump everything in this country, else we no longer have the basic principles that created the true United States of America. Regarding our universal humanity and sense of decency, it doesn't stop there either. Our Constitutional Rights are a part of our Civil Rights, which are a subset of Human Rights, which have no limitations of national border whatsoever (e.g.,see the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.) We should all be duly diligent and not allow rogue individuals, departments or institutions to routinely bludgeon us into a dullard complacency.
Ok Stephen, so in the course of doing something that you shouldn't have been and thgen being directed to by them to either go to them, or stop riding your bike in a dnagerous area, and then YOU freaking out (yes I can most likely assume you did), could you not see that they may have been a bit freaked out by you and in the course of trying to calm you down you began to struggle with them...
But after you fought and argued and refused their commands you were tased....You were found guilty Stephen....In court...So obviously your rights weren't violated.....
Really.....Your pride was hurt...And of course you couldn't have done ANYTHING that may have impeded you riding away that night..
Of course not....
I'm sorry, anonymous, but there are many errors in what you write. For the most part, I have to let these kind of unfounded comments go as I need the time for many other things. I will simply say this- it has now been well established that at the time of the incident cycling on the public airport roads was absolutely legal. Nobody in the last year, including the prosecution or the police, have been able to show me a single law prohibiting bicycles where I was riding. The signs went up four months later. Secondly, I asked at the incident to speak with Officer Wingate's supervisor. Police testimony corroborated this. I don't believe that can be considered 'freaking out'. Thirdly, the district court jury unanimously found that I had NOT fought and struggled with the police. That whole idea is preposterous and the jury found it so. I invite you to attend the appellate court trial and hear the arguments on the last remaining count as presented by both sides.
Being found not guilty doesn't mean you are innocent...
It just means there wasn't enough to convict...
I mean heck OJ was found not guilty too....
Mr. Orsak resonates with my sense of propriety and justice. As a senior citizen who has worked with law enforcement personnel as a technical adviser and implementer for 30 years, and also a life-long bicyclist, I experience familiarity with the sarcastic undertone of a rather fixated commentator. I think all might enjoy the article in the NYTimes (if all read) recently about Sigmund Freud's work on the psychology and role of the Father-Figure.
http://tinyurl.com/376ew3
J...no understones to my sarcasm...It's there out in the open up on top.....
The MSP web site now has and "MSP Bike Access Map".
It can be found at the following address. The address was split into two lines because it got turncated when I tried to put it on one line.
http://www.mspairport.com/
msp/docs/msp_bikemap_final.pdf
John P. Bloomington, MN
Also note that the "bike map" is entitled "Travelers biking to the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport have several options".
MSP International Airport is NOT the same a Lindberg Terminal.
The MSP International Airport has two terminals, Lindgerg and Humphrey.
John P. Bloomington, MN
Thank you, John, for posting that website update.
Of course, this does not constitute equal access or equally easy access to the Lindbergh terminal. Can you imagine all auto drivers being happy to park short of the terminal, then wait for and take a train the last bit, paying a separate fare, negotiating several elevators or subterranean escalators, just to end up outside at the front entrance? And for workers to do such a thing with a bicycle twice a day? This is extremely cumbersome, and hardly a lasting solution.
Stephen...It's also not illegal to jump off of a bridge, but I'm sure you know that it would be dangerous and therefore wouldn't do it?
Post a Comment