In 2011 Peter got this black eye when beaten by the police in Franklin, Mass. But there were no witnesses who would come forward.
In 2011 Peter got this black eye when beaten by the police in Franklin, Mass. But there were no witnesses who would come forward.
“A jury that appeared to be made up of several people who were strongly pro-abortion.”
There would seem to be something amiss with the defense lawyer if there were pro abortion advocates on the jury. Those people should have been excluded during fury selection.
Peter started walking down the sidewalk next to the school. There were only a few students around.
Suddenly the school principal came out of the building and approached Peter, telling him that he was disturbing students. Peter pulled out his video camera and asked him to repeat what he said, but he turned around and walked back into the school. Peter continued to stand on the public sidewalk.
Almost immediately a police officer came and began to approach Peter. Peter pulled out his video camera and turned it on. Peter asked the cop what he had done wrong, and told him that he had the right to stand on a public sidewalk. The cop got very angry and demanded that Peter leave immediately. He reached out and pushed the camcorder, but Peter held on to it.
The cop got angrier and more threatening, so Peter decided to leave. He started walking away, crossing the street. The cop followed him and continued to yell at him, telling him to go home. Peter's video camera was still on and pointed toward the cop. He was also holding his sign and his handouts.
As soon as Peter got to the other side, without any warning the cop tackled him to the ground. Peter then realized he was being arrested but did not know why. Peter went limp, and the cop quickly handcuffed him and put him into the patrol car. The cop took the video camera, but the sign and handouts were left behind on the ground. When Peter asked about his sign the cop refused to gather it. Normally, a police officer collects the person's property when arresting him.
Peter was taken to the station, but not taken inside immediately. They left him in the car for 20 minutes, which is unusual, before taking him inside. He was booked, fingerprinted, and charged with (1) disturbing a school; (2) trespass; and (3) resisting arrest.
The officer's police report included several statements which Peter strongly denied. It said that the officer observed Peter "filming the students and school officials" and that he "informed Mr. D'Attilio several times that if he did not leave school grounds that he would be placed under arrest." It also said that Peter was "on school grounds" rather than on the public sidewalk.
Is that true? Was Peter taping kids? Did the officer actually say those things to him? The tape in the video camera would certainly reveal that, since his camera was on the entire time the police officer was at the scene.
After Peter's arraignment, the police finally gave Peter back his video camera. But the camera had been broken open and the cassette tape was missing. Peter asked numerous times about getting the tape back. A clerk at the police station told Peter that the police officer confirmed to her that he had taken the tape out of the camera and that he had the tape, but that Peter couldn't get it right now, though possibly later.
They kept stalling. After Peter's lawyer sent a formal letter to the department requesting the tape, the police changed their story and said that the camera had never had a tape in it. That's what the officer testified at the trial.
Peter's broken video camera right after he got it back from the Brockton Police Department.
Not buying the points contained in the article.
And no witness would come forward?
Maybe none saw the event or didn’t see what is claimed.
And the part about a sympathetic jury to the prosecution ?
Uhmmm “ Voir dire”???
I’ll skip the rest.
Sumpn ain’t right.
He was tried and convicted for opposing abortion. Fortunately, the jury understood that abortion nullifies all laws.
“You might beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride.” —Jackbooted Thug
I know Cindy Brackett professionally....have worked many many cases with her when she was a district court prosecutor ....for around 20 years.
The portrayal proffered by the author.... of her demeanor and lack of rectitude .....cause me to consider the narrative to be, I suspect, fabricated in some respects; and, obviously, flush with weighted adjectives and bias.
I support the position of the defendant. But please keep your circumspection regarding the actual proceedings of the court....the testimony. I, rather, would trust a transcript of the case.
Something about a jury of your peers seems to be missing here.
Red England is generally anti-Christian.
Explanation: militant man-hating fang-tooth feminazis give big bucks to the politicians. Politicians are deathly afraid of the feminazis, and will do anything, including convicting innocent people, to please the feminazis.
I and my wife supported and teamed with massresistance many years ago to confront educational misdirection in the state.
I feel that this type of reportage does no service to the causes or credibility of the organization, however. Meant to inflame, it succeeds. But mass resistance. should not be, or become, what it loathes.
Can he appeal?