Replies

>Lawless was standing at the counter of the store [snip] when she was grabbed from behind and violently pushed back with a police officer’s gun in her face.

Obviously standard arrest procedure. [/sarc][/cynic]

>After a chaotic struggle, Lawless was arrested and charged with assaulting the officer.
>
>Lawless and her three friends, all in their early 20s, filed complaints with the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau. But in cases in which it’s a defendant’s word against a police officer’s, the benefit of doubt often falls to the cop.
>
>Except when there’s video.

Ah, so five witnesses [the four friends & the clerk] against a cop and possibly his son needs to be corroborated with video footage?

>The incident provides a vivid example of how the countless video recordings generated today by security cameras and cell phones are affecting police work.

Because accountability is a *bad* thing? Or because it reveals that the police CAN be corrupt, malicious, and/or petty?

>Drexel Law School professor Donald Tibbs said that video recordings are capturing more criminal activity and assisting prosecutions, but they’re also monitoring police conduct.
>
>”Police are now aware they’re more accountable for their actions, because these tapes may be used against them in misconduct cases or civil-rights lawsuits,” Tibbs said.

As it should be, in my opinion.

>The clerk on duty the night that Lopez confronted Lawless told investigators that three times after the incident, police officers spoke with him about the security tape and that two asked if he would erase it.

Could somebody explain how this ISN’T obstruction of justice and/or [attempting to] destroy evidence?

>Lopez grabbed Lawless’ neck from behind with his left hand, with his gun in his right hand. Lawless broke free and faced him.
>
>”I was really confused,” Lawless said in an interview. “I didn’t know if we were getting robbed. I remember seeing his uniform on his arm, he swung me around and hit me with his arm. He hit me first with an open hand, then he hit me with his gun in the face.”
>
>The video shows Lopez’s left arm extending toward Lawless’ face, and then his right arm driving forcefully toward her, jamming the gun in her neck or jaw.

How is this not assault? How is this not assault with a deadly weapon? (Granted he’s hitting her with the gun and not shooting at her...) And how could it be, as claimed, resisting arrest? (Nobody mentioned Miranda rights, nor does a surprise assault from behind seem to be standard arrest procedure...) How is this not a case of self defense on the part of Lawless AS WELL AS a case of “deprivation of rights under color of law” on part of the officer? (4th Amendment protects people from unreasonable search and seizure [arrest], Also, Conspiracy Against Rights could be applicable, see Sec 241 & 242 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_13.html )

>Lawless broke free again, and for several seconds the video shows the three young men sitting on the floor, while arguing occurs among all four and Officer Lopez and his son.
>
>”I had noticed his son as the guy who had hit us,” Lawless said, “and [Officer Lopez] was screaming, ‘You think you can hit my son and get away with it, you think you can f-— with me?’ “
>
>The store clerk reported hearing similar comments from Officer Lopez.

See, five witnesses.

>”I remember stopping for a second, and thinking, like, ‘This is out of control, I need to go get a real cop or something,’ “ Lawless said. “I was really scared.”

Indeed, this man WAS out of control. Criminally so.

>Ruiz, the Lukoil clerk, told investigators that after officers arrived following the altercation in the convenience store, he heard Officer Lopez give his son some instructions in Spanish, including, “ ‘Say he had a gun.’ “

Oh, MORE conspiracy! It is defined as “two or more people.”

>”I’m troubled by the conduct of the officer, about his telling a story that lacks credibility, and about the fact he thought he could get away with it,” Yatvin said.
>
>He said it’s also troubling that so many officers apparently sought to dispose of the video, the key evidence in the case, and suffered no consequence after Internal Affairs investigated.

Indeed, that is very troubling indeed. Almost moreso than the incident itself because they are actively seeking to deny accountability on the part of an official’s (the officer) actions.

I have the troubling feeling that, had I (or some other National Guardsman) been there and opened fire on this domestic enemy of the Constitution (as noted above; and thusly fulfilling our sworn duty) we would be facing criminal trial and, quite probably, a guilty verdict.