ok all you cop aplogists explain this ....

[sommpd]

For those of you who say the cops were not acting as cops, and that first amendment rights were not violated, you should read this:

http://images.somd.com/docs/Rossignol_v_Voorhaar_021326.P.pdf

Did you read where it said the police officers were OFF DUTY DRIVING PERSONAL CARS? There was a perception by a clerk that the cops "could make life hell for him" but I believe that clerk was convicted of possessing child pornography. He never said he told the people buying papers they couldn't, he had a perception he shouldn't.

 

[MMDad]

I'm not saying that at all. The man was convicted and served whatever sentence was imposed. But this headline was put out there the day of the election in a manner to attempt to alter the election. Is that the American way? Is that fair jounalism? Is that how you envision your America should be? What opportunity would the candidate have to rebut that headline on the day of the election. Do you believe the newspaper just got that story that day or decided to hold it to attempt to alter a fair election?

I would much rather that a false allegation be published than a true allegation be suppressed. The people who took this action decided for themselves what the public had a right to read. That's the problem.

I have no respect for St. Mary's today, and I find it's publisher to be the lowest of the low. But that does not change the fact that he has a right to publish, and people have a right to read it. If there was something untrue printed, there is no reason that Fritz and Voorhar couldn't have persued legal remedy.

 

[MMDad]

Did you read where it said the police officers were OFF DUTY DRIVING PERSONAL CARS? There was a perception by a clerk that the cops "could make life hell for him" but I believe that clerk was convicted of possessing child pornography. He never said he told the people buying papers they couldn't, he had a perception he shouldn't.

The Sherriff and Fritz gave the money to the deputies to buy the papers. Come on now.

The incident in this case may have taken place in America, but it belongs to a society much different and more oppressive than our own.

 

[Lugnut]

Did you read where it said the police officers were OFF DUTY DRIVING PERSONAL CARS?

I just finished reading the file. I did see that. I also saw...

this sort of quasi-private conspiracy by public officials was precisely
the target of § 1983,

The seizure clearly contravened the most elemental
tenets of First Amendment law.

the fact that defendants paid for the newspapers in no way
affects the conclusion that the seizure violated plaintiffs’ right to disseminate
core political speech. "Governmental restraint on publishing
need not fall into familiar or traditional patterns to be subject to constitutional
limitations on governmental powers."


What matters is that defendants
intentionally suppressed the dissemination of plaintiffs’ political ideas
on the basis of their viewpoint. And in doing so before the critical
commentary ever reached the eyes of readers, their conduct met the
classic definition of a prior restraint.

We have no doubt that the seizure in this case was perpetrated
under color of state law. The requisite nexus between defendants’
public office and their actions during the seizure arose initially out of
their censorial motivation

The defendants’ scheme was thus a classic
example of the kind of suppression of political criticism which the
First Amendment was intended to prohibit. The fact that these law
enforcement officers acted after hours and after they had taken off
their badges cannot immunize their efforts to shield themselves from
adverse comment and to stifle public scrutiny of their performance.

Defendants’ statements on the videotapes recorded that evening
further emphasize their desire to "cleanse the filth" printed in the
newspaper and prevent the "pack of lies" from being circulated.
Among other comparable comments, one deputy said, "you call us
idiots, Rossignol? We’ll show you. . . . We’ll show you, Rossignol;
that’s all I got to say."

This is disgusting to me.

Each of these men listed in the suit took an oath to uphold the constitution. Instead, they violated it. How many of them are still officers?

RICHARD J. VOORHAAR, Sheriff, St.Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office;
RICHARD FRITZ, State’s Attorney forSt. Mary’s County, Maryland;
DANIEL ALIOTO, Deputy First Class,St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office;
STEVEN DOOLAN, Captain, St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office;
LYLE LONG, Sergeant, St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office;
MICHAEL MERICAN, Sergeant, St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office;
STEVEN MYERS, Deputy First Class, St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office;
EDWARD WILLENBORG, Sergeant, St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office;
HAROLD YOUNG, Deputy First Class, St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office;

 

[Merlin99]

Actually, it wasn't a dissenting opinion - it was a huge headline on election day that said "FRITZ GUILTY OF RAPE," which was only marginally true. Whatever happened, Fritz was only found guilty of statutory rape - sex with a girl who was only a few years younger than him.

I have no real problem with the public being "deprived" of sensationalism and false innuendo.

Now you're giving up your first amendment rights along with your fourth amendment rights. Which one is next, 2nd, you don't look like the gun type anyway?

 

[sommpd]

I just finished reading the file. I did see that. I also saw...



This is disgusting to me.

Each of these men listed in the suit took an oath to uphold the constitution. Instead, they violated it. How many of them are still officers?

I read the opinion for the first time here and it is pretty strongly worded. While I disagree with some of the opinion, I can see how this could be perceived as a constitutional violation. You're correct, these guys did take an oath to uphold the constitution and they do. They saw something they thought was unfair, which it was, and they acted. It was clear that they were doing anything wrong, a court even said so. They didn't start out that night knowing what they were doing was going to be percieved later in a civil court as wrong, but it was. Most of these guys are still police officers, and very good police officers at that. They are the guys you want coming to help you when a horrible crime has been committed against you. My name is not listed amongst these guys, but I will tell you that they are the best of the best when it comes to being a police officer. So before you become so disgusted with them, remember, it wasn't clear cut that their actions were wrong. One court said they did nothing wrong, while another court reversed that opinion. If learned judges could differ on their opinion, well then I give them the benefit of doubt.

I respect your right to be disgusted, but I would hope you would consider the totality of the circumstance surrounding this event. The owner of the newspaper had plenty of time to put that information out, so the candidate could argue his side, then let the voters decide if the information is valuable enough to choose the other candidate. The newspaper didn't want to be fair about that. They wanted to steal an election, and I think that is a bit wrong as well!

It's up to the voters to decide after all the information is presented, and I would say since the man is still in office after an election was held after that incident, well, maybe the voters have truly spoken.

 

[foodcritic]

What gives

7online.com: Yonkers officer accused of brutality 5/30/08





Explain this away ....


Watched both videos...What the problem BE? First vid show nothing but a guy resisiting as he gets dragged off to jail. The second an apparent female cop subdueing a felon commiting a felon in her presence. U got a problem with that radio? May be should just ask him please next time.