I was reading up on some news today and came across these two articles about some rather silly arrests made by officers using poor judgement. I hope all charges get dropped in both cases. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/elizabeth-daly-bottled-water-jail_n_3518340.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/christopher-beatty-arrest-iced-tea_n_3232925.html
What poor judgement? The first girl drove off and hit two officers after being shown a badge. She was arrested for that, not for having alcohol... She'd have not been arrested if she'd just waited there, poor judgement was for the girl, not the officers... That rapper did not collaborate with the officer and refused to obey an order, what is it, you'd prefer if nobody would respect the law and never listen to a police officer? You know libertarianism is just an utopy right? Police officers are not always wrong, maybe if you read these articles with a neutral point of view you'd have seen the poor judgement not beeing on the officers side...
I think swarming the car and pulling a gun, with one officer jumping on the hood, than attempting to break the windows all over a suspected 12pack of beer(which was really water) is over reacting! After the girls pulled over and they found the "beer" was water and they were really dealing with two young women who they scarred the poop out of, they didn't let her go but charged her with felony charges! Maybe the officer should have produced some ID, he was not in any type of uniform at all. Myself, if in that situation, would have requested to see a badge or other ID. The officer stated he approached him because he was "holding the can in a suspicious manner". How do you hold a can suspiciously? Looked like he was just having a drink like a normal person to me.
"In a statement to The Huffington Post, Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control spokesman Kathleen Shaw said that the first agent who approached Daly "identified herself as a police officer and was displaying her badge" and that "other agents did not join the incident until the subject refused to cooperate." From that article they did not swarm the car, they did once she tried to flee...
So pulling a gun and attempting to smash windows is an appropriate response to a possible minor buying beer? Then when you realize your mistake you charge them with felonies instead of letting them go?
Wasn't it her making off that precipitated the armed response? I may have misread it but that's what I got from it
They pulled guns and attempted to smash the windows because SHE WAS TRYING TO DRIVE AWAY which is also a felony offence.
Some additional articles on this story. Also I understand the charges were not dropped till a few months later, the same time the story began to be covered by the press. http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/0...harges-from-water-buying-incident--90722.html http://www.newsadvance.com/news/local/article_d8ae33e0-dfeb-11e2-8866-0019bb30f31a.html http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/s...cle_45498018-e019-11e2-b98a-001a4bcf6878.html Edit: "Charlottesville Commonwealth's Attorney Dave Chapman read Daly's account and said it was factually consistent." Seems the States lawyers agrees with the young womens account rather than the official press release by the Alcoholic Beverage Control spokesman Kathleen Shaw
Bear in mind the girl in the ABC case hadn't done anything wrong, so she had absolutely zero reason to flee the scene of her innocence, which makes her side of the story sound not only plausible, but probable. Had the officers done a proper job of identifying themselves, none of this would have happened, but regardless, drawing a weapon over a possible underage drinking offence takes police stupidity to a whole new level. The girl behaved exactly as any reasonable person would do having been attacked by armed assailants. Or are we going to go down the Kiedis route again, where people insist that she should have realised that the random people with guns trying to break into her car had every right to be doing so?
The biggest thing to me is after realizing that no crime was initially committed and that they merely scarred the poop out of some college girls, they charged her with felonies! Also since the charges were dropped the same time the story broke, well after the incident, does that mean it was the first amendment and not the second that protected her from tyranny?
It's a he said she said thing though isn't it ? The police claim they identified themselves , she implies they didn't.
ABC agents don't wear uniforms but do carry badges which they claimed they showed. I imagine the weapons were drawn after she refused to stop and/or hit or almost hit two of them with her car. The agents don't know she doesn't know who they are. All they know is they're trying to stop a car to investigate a crime they're paid to enforce and that she's not stopping and struck two of their guys. Once all of the facts were heard is probably when they agreed to withdraw charges. In my state at least the district attorney cannot withdraw any charges without permission of the arresting officers in most cases.
You see an awful lot of that and it's hard to prove either way. In my state a young kid claimed the three white officers chasing him in a predominantly black neighborhood never IDed themselves so he ran thinking they were going to rob him. He then claimed he never fought back so the aggravated assault charges against him should be dropped. Thing is, if he genuinely believed three white guys in the projects were going to rob him, why wouldn't you fight back? Another case of hearing just one side of the story unfortunately. And the media eats it up.
No, not really. A group of state Alcoholic Beverage Control agents clad in plainclothes approached her, suspecting the blue carton of LaCroix sparkling water to be a 12-pack of beer. Police say one of the agents jumped on the hood of her car. She says one drew a gun. Unsure of who they were, Daly tried to flee the darkened parking lot. "They were showing unidentifiable badges after they approached us, but we became frightened, as they were not in anything close to a uniform," she recalled Thursday in a written account of the April 11 incident. "I couldn't put my windows down unless I started my car, and when I started my car they began yelling to not move the car, not to start the car. They began trying to break the windows. My roommates and I were ... terrified," Daly stated. Charlottesville Commonwealth's Attorney Dave Chapman read Daly's account and said it was factually consistent. This was not a traffic stop, she just left the store and was approached by a group in a dark parking lot. Maybe one of the LEOs here could answer my question. After you do stop them, realize there is no alcohol just a couple young women you just scarred the poop out of, why arrest her under three felony charges!? That more than anything to me seems ridiculous. Edit: The first article also states that while feeling the girls called 911 and stopped for a marked patrol car with flashing lights.
And from what the ABC agents said, they were all displaying badges when they surrounded the car to investigate and that is when she tried to drive off almost running people over. A third party caller reported seeing undercover officers in the parking lot with guns, so obviously someone recognized them as such. There's two sides to every story. Also the charges were not dropped, but voluntarily withdrawn. There is a difference between the two and the voluntary withdrawal is actually more beneficial for her and did require the cooperation of the agents involved.
Perhaps they didn't. Perhaps since her actions put them in danger and because she did apparently hit two of them is why they charged her. People do make stupid mistakes but that doesn't mean they get forgiven in the same night by the legal system. We're assuming everything we know now came out the same night which hardly ever happens.