|
Post by Jolly on Sept 27, 2020 21:13:58 GMT
But the cop can be used to enforce school policy and as a representative of the school, can order people to leave the premises. If they don't leave the premises when told, they are trespassing. There are various degrees of trespass from misdemeanor to felony. I would have to do some research to see where this one falls, but he was enforcing law when he arrested the woman. I think that someone missed something to have a legal trespass on public property one has to of committed a unlawful act. Disobeying a policy is not unlawful bad manners maybe. The cops went on a fishing trip. If this woman has the means for a good lawyer my bet is she is going to get one large check. I've given a link to the law. She's toast.
|
|
|
Post by sawmilljim on Sept 27, 2020 21:50:04 GMT
Jolly that is so far off even I could win for her in court ! She was not in a restricted area. She broke policy now a law. The cop had no legal right under that Ohio law as there is no law on masks just policy.
Like the folks that do the first amendment audits and the cops enforce some policy. Last guy that got arrested donated a large part of his settlement to St Judes. He was arrested for standing on a public sidewalk and the cop hauled him off for trespassing. Really bad move
|
|
|
Post by Jolly on Sept 27, 2020 22:20:36 GMT
As used in this section, “place of public amusement” means a stadium, theater, or other facility, whether licensed or not, at which a live performance, sporting event, or other activity takes place for entertainment of the public and to which access is made available to the public, regardless of whether admission is charged.
She was at a high school football game. In a high school stadium. CHECK.
No person, without privilege to do so, shall knowingly enter or remain on any restricted portion of a place of public amusement and, as a result of that conduct, interrupt or cause the delay of the live performance, sporting event, or other activity taking place at the place of public amusement after a printed written notice has been given as provided in division (D)(1) of this section that the general public is restricted from access to that restricted portion of the place of public amusement. A restricted portion of a place of public amusement may include, but is not limited to, a playing field, an athletic surface, or a stage located at the place of public amusement.
High school football stadium. CHECK
Notice has been given that the general public is restricted from access to a portion of a place of public amusement if a printed written notice of the restricted access has been conspicuously posted or exhibited at the entrance to that portion of the place of public amusement. If a printed written notice is posted or exhibited as described in this division regarding a portion of a place of public amusement, in addition to that posting or exhibition, notice that the general public is restricted from access to that portion of the place of public amusement also may be given, but is not required to be given, by either of the following means:
(a) By notifying the person personally, either orally or in writing, that access to that portion of the place of public amusement is restricted;
(b) By broadcasting over the public address system of the place of public amusement an oral warning that access to that portion of the place of public amusement is restricted.
The rules were made public, with the public and the student body informed before the sporting event took place. Not only that, the cop verbally informed her about the mask rule and gave her the option to either wear a mask or leave the stadium. She had a mask in her pocket, but chose not to wear it. She could have left the stadium, but she chose not to. CHECK I think she picked a stupid hill to die on.
Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of criminal trespass on a place of public amusement, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(2) In addition to any jail term, fine, or other sentence, penalty, or sanction it imposes upon the offender pursuant to division (E)(1) of this section, a court may require an offender who violates this section to perform not less than thirty and not more than one hundred twenty hours of supervised community service work.
CHECKMATE Again, if one feels strongly about wearing a mask to a public sporting event, by all means raise cain with the local school board and any elected official that will listen to you. But one is not going to win that fight sitting on a football stadium bleacher.
What I quoted, was the law as it pertains to her charge. The only thing I think she can squawk about, is whether the cop used excessive force in arresting her. I don't think his actions rise to that level.
|
|
|
Post by sawmilljim on Sept 27, 2020 22:35:27 GMT
Read it one more time. She was not in a restricted area. Announcing of a speaker doesn’t modify law. Masks are policy not law and announcing it will never change the fact. One the main reason a lot of police departments refuse to attempt enforcement.
Correct she was at a football game sitting where the public was allowed to be. I keep saying policy ain’t law !
|
|
|
Post by Jolly on Sept 27, 2020 22:51:56 GMT
A school is a restricted area, as is the stadium in which the school team plays.
|
|
|
Post by sawmilljim on Sept 27, 2020 23:26:21 GMT
A school is a restricted area, as is the stadium in which the school team plays. Not according to the law you posted ! Only certain areas are not accessible to the public. Thus the reason that Ohio law was enacted. Bleachers are not in a restricted area. Nor is the parking lot. Like it or not that cop violated her civil rights more ways than one. Just for fun I did a search pertaining to how many lawsuits that have been filed nationwide. Hint I think there are so many they can’t count them all.
|
|
|
Post by Ozarks Tom on Sept 27, 2020 23:29:28 GMT
What y'all are arguing about is coming down to semantics. Law/policy, law/regulation. The crux of the incident for me boils down to this: Did the cop opt for the taser in lieu of physical restraint? Given the disparagement in size, weight and strength, his aggressive actions rather than trying to calm the situation, and his wanton painful attack on a small woman there's no defending him beyond his order to either put on a mask or leave. After that, his actions were well beyond reasonable. There's a point at which a line is crossed between reasonable force and pure sadism. In my opinion he crossed that line.
In many jurisdictions use of a taser is considered lethal force, at what point was the officer in fear of his life?
|
|
|
Post by fordy on Sept 27, 2020 23:59:28 GMT
...............This excessive use of force is a very close replay of the idiot cop in the hospital who man handled the nurse who prevented him from obtaining the blood test info of a guy on her floor ! ...............Anyone with common sense knows that Cops need to have limits imposed upon their authority and application of force in these kinds of situations ! OTOH , it is also true that NO ONE questions their use of deadly force when they are being fired upon or a person with a weapon is attempting to harm them or another person . , fordy
|
|
|
Post by Jolly on Sept 28, 2020 0:19:18 GMT
What y'all are arguing about is coming down to semantics. Law/policy, law/regulation. The crux of the incident for me boils down to this: Did the cop opt for the taser in lieu of physical restraint? Given the disparagement in size, weight and strength, his aggressive actions rather than trying to calm the situation, and his wanton painful attack on a small woman there's no defending him beyond his order to either put on a mask or leave. After that, his actions were well beyond reasonable. There's a point at which a line is crossed between reasonable force and pure sadism. In my opinion he crossed that line.
In many jurisdictions use of a taser is considered lethal force, at what point was the officer in fear of his life?
Ok, I'll bite...Once the decision was made to arrest her, what should the cop have done?
|
|
|
Post by sawmilljim on Sept 28, 2020 0:45:06 GMT
What y'all are arguing about is coming down to semantics. Law/policy, law/regulation. The crux of the incident for me boils down to this: Did the cop opt for the taser in lieu of physical restraint? Given the disparagement in size, weight and strength, his aggressive actions rather than trying to calm the situation, and his wanton painful attack on a small woman there's no defending him beyond his order to either put on a mask or leave. After that, his actions were well beyond reasonable. There's a point at which a line is crossed between reasonable force and pure sadism. In my opinion he crossed that line.
In many jurisdictions use of a taser is considered lethal force, at what point was the officer in fear of his life?
Ok, I'll bite...Once the decision was made to arrest her, what should the cop have done? Under the Ohio law he should never decided to arrest her . The original offence was breaking a rule/policy or announcement there was no law violation . Also in most states it is illegal for a cop to solicit a trespass if such applied . The taser is just adding cash to her pile .
|
|
|
Post by Ozarks Tom on Sept 28, 2020 1:11:48 GMT
Jolly, said: Before we get to that point of the occurrence, let's back up and ask if there was a legitimate reason to arrest her. She was sitting with her child, well away from other spectators. Was the officer acting in an effort to protect others, or was he intent on proving his authority to those in the bleachers? Once confronted by the officer she should have put on her mask, and when he left taken it back off with probably no further problems. But she didn't, and the officer decided to forcibly remove her from the bleachers. We all know police officers are trained that just a simple wrist hold incapacitates a weaker person. If he wasn't able to control physically a much smaller and weaker person he should find a new line of work. You or I could. The crux of the matter is the taser, and his readiness to use it rather than standard police methods. Obviously she gave the officer grief, resisted arrest, and was a real jerk. But, he was an even bigger jerk in quickly tasering her when simple brute force would have sufficed. He had choices, and he chose the worst.
|
|
|
Post by sawmilljim on Sept 28, 2020 1:29:53 GMT
Yep she has a lawyer Maurice Thompson.
|
|
|
Post by Jolly on Sept 28, 2020 1:31:54 GMT
Well, let's see what comes of it.
|
|
|
Post by sawmilljim on Sept 28, 2020 1:39:25 GMT
Well, let's see what comes of it. My guess was right he is going after everyone involved for civil rights violations just for starters.
|
|
|
Post by sawmilljim on Sept 28, 2020 1:48:56 GMT
A lot depends on how long the city wants to fight it. If they settle out of court for the usual no disclosure we won’t know how much she got . I have seen some of the first amendment auditors take a few years.
|
|