• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

How is one arrested solely for resisting arrest/

mlm said:
Or if you were willing to hold yourself accountable to the shit you say. Until then I'll just file you with the rest of the complainers of the world.
Click to expand...

I haven't said 'shit' which needs rebuke. You are free to keep standing up for the powerful, however, no skin off my nose.

Again, I know I am on the side of right, you can't touch it.
 
Human Ills said:
She absolutely had 'business' butting in, she is his lawyer. Ignore the lame 'but not in this different case that she doesn't even know about' nonsense. It doesn't work that way.

For one thing, the cop could be lying, if nothing else... And there is all sorts of else.


We cannot allow cops to get away with arresting defense lawyers in the act of advising clients,

Furthermore, this wouldn't even be a question for a paid lawyer/client circumstance. Again, another ugly precedent to try to establish.
Click to expand...

Good points, and just trying to help you be heard by deleting potential provocations, that is all and carry on......actually I will carry on as this is a good thread and just now catching up and by all means I am not slamming on bojangle so the mods know and I welcome and appreciate his input here since he is an authority.
 
it does not seem unreasonable for a lawyer in court with a client when leaving that court room to see police talking to that client to assume it's about what happened in that court or with that case and thus she would believe that she has a right to advise her client on how to talk to the police.

Either the detective is extremely clever in knowing that the lawyer would view it this way and interject herself in to the situation and he'd get a chance to cuff a lawyer, which I bet he loved: or when the lawyer behaved in a rather predictable fashion instead of realizing the situation and communicating to defuse it, he went full cop and insisted that she respect his authority.

to me it seems like two people that both have professions that require large egos bumping egos. time will tell how this plays out, but by the end of it I bet both the cop and the lawyer will wish they had acted differently.
 
human ills said:
seems to me a like i create as much discord as possible, which would dissolve would some people be willing to hold me accountable.
Click to expand...

ftfy

Human Ills said:
I haven't said 'shit' which needs rebuke. You are free to keep standing up for the powerful, however, no skin off my nose.

Again, I know I am on the side of right, you can't touch it.
Click to expand...


Somebody should keep track of your sayings, so that in the future the people can read: "The sayings of Human Ills, our beloved Leader".
 
Last edited:
asthmodeus said:
looks like a test point to me, or they intended to convey that you can choose the path of least resistance..
Click to expand...

Well speaking as an electrician a parallel circuit means one load or device can be taken out but the others on that same circuit continue to function. The path of least resistance, in this subtext, as the public defender did, is to allow the arresting authorities to do their job without resistance and then taking the matter up in court, so good point astmodeous. still catching up here but my bet is if any charges are brought they are immediately dismissed against the public defender.:thumbup
 
hophead said:
Well speaking as an electrician a parallel circuit means one load or device can be taken out but the others on that same circuit continue to function. The path of least resistance, in this subtext, as the public defender did, is to allow the arresting authorities to do their job without resistance and then taking the matter up in court, so good point astmodeous. still catching up here but my bet is if any charges are brought they are immediately dismissed against the public defender.:thumbup
Click to expand...

Probably, but it won't be because she was right. It will be because the SFPD, Public Defender's Office and DA all work together and for the same reason. To process the unfortunate and or criminal and get paid for doing it. When one of those three triangle legs bends too much, it affects the other two. That's what the public defender's office is pissed about.

Justice in America is big business.
 
afm199 said:
Read the Chronicle article, it's a lot clearer and goes into much more detail about what happened.
Click to expand...

Read your Chron article diligently

keep in mind ,.. your article ends with the following:
[Hadar Aviram, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco] added, “Regardless of where the constitutional disposition is, the attorney was in no way being violent or resisting arrest or being disruptive in any way. It’s extreme and it’s bad press for (the police). I’m surprised.”
Click to expand...

there's at least one more funny fact inside that article as well(other than that the CBS link was also very informative)

OK just gotta insert a few more things here:laughing

HI
2SYS
IBTL

have a good day
 
From the Wikipedia article on Psychosis:

Delusions
Psychosis may involve delusional beliefs, some of which are paranoid in nature. Put simply, delusions are false beliefs that a person holds on to, without adequate evidence. It can be difficult to change the belief, even with evidence to the contrary. Common themes of delusions are persecutory (person believes that others are out to harm him/her), grandiose (person believing that he or she has special powers or skills), etc.​
 
afm199 said:
Probably, but it won't be because she was right. It will be because the SFPD, Public Defender's Office and DA all work together and for the same reason. To process the unfortunate and or criminal and get paid for doing it. When one of those three triangle legs bends too much, it affects the other two. That's what the public defender's office is pissed about.

Justice in America is big business.
Click to expand...

I hear ya ernie, bends too much but also flexes too much. it is not dissimilar to the executive branch of government under bush/cheney and how their power over the legislative and judicial branch of government was obsequiously granted by the masses of those still in shock from 9/11-their's was a precedent we are seeing played out today and challenged, just as the far reaching attempts by any one of those branches of government were designed by the founding fathers to be challenged and held to account by "checks and balances."
In the court of public opinion we should all of us be willing to listen to the argument and not silence the voice of opposition just because we have status over them and are insecure in our own beliefs. Police are there to enforce the law not create and interpret it according to their own agendas.:thumbup
 
afm199 said:
Didn't force him. They can say whatever they want. If he asks for counsel then they either have to shit or get off the pot.
Click to expand...

It's pretty murky and confusing though. Here the Attorney is in the same vicinity for the suspect and comes to the suspect's side during the questioning. While this may be a separate action, under the reasonable person logic, one could assume that she was representing him at that time for this "new" investigation. I'm reasonably confident that when we have "representation" in the legal world, it's a larger umbrella, rather than smaller. IOW, each new crime we are charged with isn't one that we must name an our counsel and ask for specific counsel (clear me where wrong here, please). Her proximity to the suspect and interference may count as acceptance as counsel. Did he ask for counsel? What is the standard there? A look? Pleading eyes? Specific words? Considering the ongoing representation, I'm leaning towards the officer taking a bit of a slap from the court, even if he was technically in the right.

bojangle said:
Exactly! If it's a new investigation for a crime that he had not yet been charged with, the inspector is going to know that he was not being represented for that case. Sounds like a dumb move on the attorney's part.
Click to expand...

How would the investigator know either way? IOW, how would the investigator know to arrest her? How did he assertion she was not representing the subject in general matters too? I don't have the answers to that...it's a real question.

afm199 said:
They aren't required to ascertain who is what. They are investigating a crime, and they don't have ANY legal obligation to provide ANYONE who walks up anything, UNLESS the suspect asks for counsel. Then they can arrest him or walk. There is NO obligation on the part of police to inform someone of their rights until they are being arrested.
Click to expand...

Correct, however it would be smart for the investigator to ascertain who the attorney was and the level of representation. there's a consistent problem we're seeing in the US and this fits right into the theme...

Wormwood said:
You avoid the obvious.

He did not exercise his right and she had no right to obstruct.
Click to expand...

In this case, I'm not sure very much is obvious aside from the majority of America not knowing the basics of law.

And that brings me to my overall point: If we want to avoid these types of polarizing issues in the future, every high school in this country should have a year of civics and half a year of US law and interaction with law enforcement, etc...IOW, what are ones real rights and obligations under the law. The fact that know one knows is an ongoing problem that prosecutors and law enforcement are able to use (to great effect too), which leads to this animus we see pervading society. Ignorance is anger, these days...and if we can cure that ignorance...
 
Holeshot said:
It's pretty murky and confusing though. Here the Attorney is in the same vicinity for the suspect and comes to the suspect's side during the questioning. While this may be a separate action, under the reasonable person logic, one could assume that she was representing him at that time for this "new" investigation. I'm reasonably confident that when we have "representation" in the legal world, it's a larger umbrella, rather than smaller. IOW, each new crime we are charged with isn't one that we must name an our counsel and ask for specific counsel (clear me where wrong here, please). Her proximity to the suspect and interference may count as acceptance as counsel. Did he ask for counsel? What is the standard there? A look? Pleading eyes? Specific words? Considering the ongoing representation, I'm leaning towards the officer taking a bit of a slap from the court, even if he was technically in the right.



How would the investigator know either way? IOW, how would the investigator know to arrest her? How did he assertion she was not representing the subject in general matters too? I don't have the answers to that...it's a real question.



Correct, however it would be smart for the investigator to ascertain who the attorney was and the level of representation. there's a consistent problem we're seeing in the US and this fits right into the theme...



In this case, I'm not sure very much is obvious aside from the majority of America not knowing the basics of law.

And that brings me to my overall point: If we want to avoid these types of polarizing issues in the future, every high school in this country should have a year of civics and half a year of US law and interaction with law enforcement, etc...IOW, what are ones real rights and obligations under the law. The fact that know one knows is an ongoing problem that prosecutors and law enforcement are able to use (to great effect too), which leads to this animus we see pervading society. Ignorance is anger, these days...and if we can cure that ignorance...
Click to expand...

She was an actress playing out a roll for attention. I will leave it to those far more informed than me to consider the legal ramifications of her actions.

I see her obstructing an officer from his job. We shall see what the Legal System decides.


From the Examiner

As the video continues, Stansbury asks to speak with Tillotson and tells her it will only take two minutes. She then replies, “we’re OK here. We don’t need any pictures taken, thank you.”
Stansbury subsequently threatens to place Tillotson under arrest for resisting arrest, to which she replies, “please do.” And then he does.

Grandstanding on both sides?
 
Last edited:
No. The cop was the actor. There was no legitimate reason to insist on taking a picture.

Fail.
 
Wormwood said:
See my edit. :p:
Click to expand...
False equivalency. There is a right of The People to grandstand, the police? Not so much, only bad comes from that.

For example, they arrested a man's lawyer and continued doing what they wanted. Very dangerous.

A mere dismissal of the charge isn't enough to set this right.
 
Last edited:
bojangle said:
One does not have a right to an attorney present during a lineup, or field show up. One also can't preemptively invoke their 5th amendment rights. A card like that means little. The police don't need to give Miranda unless there is an in custody interrogation.
Click to expand...
As soon as someone refuses to answer anything but identification, what do you do? If you don't arrest them, then they are free to do whatever they want. If you do take them into custody, they can talk through an attorney from then on. So you can't get anything, unless it is voluntary.

The same is true with a lineup. Unless the person volunteers to be in a line-up, they have the right to have an attorney present to witness the proceedings.
People v. Williams (1971) 3 Cal.3d 853, 856. (“In Wade and Gilbert, the United States Supreme Court held that a pretrial lineup was a ‘critical stage' of the prosecution at which the accused was entitled to the presence of counsel. The court held that if a witness identified a defendant in a lineup conducted in violation of the defendant's right to counsel, subsequent in-court identifications by that witness were inadmissible unless shown by clear and convincing evidence to have an origin independent of the illegal lineup.
Click to expand...
 
clutchslip said:
As soon as someone refuses to answer anything but identification, what do you do? If you don't arrest them, then they are free to do whatever they want. If you do take them into custody, they can talk through an attorney from then on. So you can't get anything, unless it is voluntary.

The same is true with a lineup. Unless the person volunteers to be in a line-up, they have the right to have an attorney present to witness the proceedings.
Click to expand...


This was not a line up and the officer was well within his right to question and photo the gentleman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top