Followup to Chet Szymecki's arrest

[joab]

I apologize if some thought my post approached cop bashing. It was not my intent to veer off the high road, but I thought my statements were not only correct (and posted a link to a local case as an example) but far from the line.

It was no where near cop bashing. coming from me that should mean something to the usual cop bashers here

Personally I do think the "sue the officers into oblivion" comments are getting close though

At the most the department should be severely disciplined and the officers forced to be retrained
The city that enacted the laws in contradiction to state law should be sued

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Joab,

What you propose would be a gift, and at the expense of the victim no less.

Perhaps we should "retrain" burglars to find a new profession, and chastise the city for making it illegal to take that which doesn't belong to you?

The city is certainly at fault for passing an illegal law, but the officers are just as much at fault for enforcing it. They would not enforce a law which said "all blacks out at night must be executed on sight", would they? If (God forbid) they DID, I'm sure everyone would be calling for their heads - literally.

Charging the officers with whatever crimes they committed as well as holding them personally responsible in a civil suit is not crossing any line. It is the least these miscreants deserve. "Retraining" is a slap on the wrist and simply sends the message to government that it may do as it pleases as long as it re-writes the policy when someone raises a big enough stink.

 

[Deanimator]

The city is certainly at fault for passing an illegal law, but the officers are just as much at fault for enforcing it. They would not enforce a law which said "all blacks out at night must be executed on sight", would they? If (God forbid) they DID, I'm sure everyone would be calling for their heads - literally.

Actually, I've heard people claim that ANY law "on the books" is enforceable, and those enforcing it are not accountable. Whenever I construct a hypothetical similar to yours, they have no response. Of course you don't have to posit anything that extreme. To hear some people tell it, Norfolk could pass facially unconstitutional laws requiring Blacks out after dark to have a pass signed by a White employer, or forbidding miscegenation, and any policeman who enforced it would be totally immune from suit.

Of course I don't believe it, and people here have posted contrary citations.

 

[buzz_knox]

Personally I do think the "sue the officers into oblivion" comments are getting close though

Suing the officers is absolutely consistent with the federal statutes developed to deal with corrupt officials (including LEOs) who violate civil rights under color of authority.

 

[joab]

What you propose would be a gift, and at the expense of the victim no less.

The victim supposedly is trying to send a message,
Shouldn't that message be sent to the ones that actually make the policies

Perhaps we should "retrain" burglars to find a new profession, and chastise the city for making it illegal to take that which doesn't belong to you?

Ridiculous comparison
Burglars know that what they are doing is illegal and no laws have been passed by their employers to make them think otherwise

The city is certainly at fault for passing an illegal law, but the officers are just as much at fault for enforcing it. They would not enforce a law which said "all blacks out at night must be executed on sight", would they? If (God forbid) they DID, I'm sure everyone would be calling for their heads - literally.

Another bad comparison
It is universally known that laws aimed at oppressing blacks has been shown to be unconstitutional and no city would even attempt to pass one giving an officer the reasonable impression that it was a legitimate law

Charging the officers with whatever crimes they committed as well as holding them personally responsible in a civil suit is not crossing any line. It is the least these miscreants deserve. "Retraining" is a slap on the wrist and simply sends the message to government that it may do as it pleases as long as it re-writes the policy when someone raises a big enough stink.

Cruxifying the officer does send a message to all other officers, one that may have unintended consequences
Do we really want officers that are too meek to perform their legitimate duties as well as the ones that we find offensive
Retraining may just produce a more knowledgeable officer that will pass that knowledge on to others
Your way would force good officers to rethink their line of employment

No officer can possibly know all the laws.
We have confirmed die hard gun advocates here that don't even know the very basic laws of buying and owning a gun and that is basically the only laws they have to be concerned with here

The department and the city are to blame for the law and instructions to enforce that law, the officers are only guilty of trusting the superiors that they are supposed to trust for information and education

 

[buzz_knox]

The department and the city are to blame for the law and instructions to enforce that law, the officers are only guilty of trusting the superiors that they are supposed to trust for information and education

And if the officers knew their actions were illegal/unauthorized at the time they committed them?

 

[joab]

And if the officers knew their actions were illegal/unauthorized at the time they committed them?

Is that the case here?

 

[Deanimator]

It was no where near cop bashing. coming from me that should mean something to the usual cop bashers here

Personally I do think the "sue the officers into oblivion" comments are getting close though

At the most the department should be severely disciplined and the officers forced to be retrained
The city that enacted the laws in contradiction to state law should be sued

I don't see how insisting that police who pierce their own qualified immunity be punished to the greatest extent of the civil law is "cop bashing". It doesn't unfairly target ALL Norfolk police, nor ALL police in general.

If Chet's claims are truthful (and Norfolk's dropping of all charges against him is evidence supporting that), he was the victim of a series of shameful intentional torts, nevermind criminal acts.

The police who assaulted Chet either knew or should have known that their acts were both criminal and tortious. It is a standing principle of the law that ignorance of the law is no defense to prosecution. To argue that police should not be held to this standard, but that citizens should, raises grave equal protection issues, and stands simple common sense on its head.

Criminal and tortious behavior of the sort engaged in by the police who abused Chet MUST be deterred. Sueing the city of Norfolk ALONE does NOTHING to do that. Norfolk will just raise taxes or engage in other fundraising activities to recoup the loss. If police who pierce their own qualified immunity by committing crimes suffer significant personal loss, it will serve to deter others from emulating their illegal actions.

 

[joab]

Qualified immunity has it's place when the officer is acting on good faith,
it protects all officers from the anti cop zealots

 

[joab]

if Chet's claims are truthful

And if they're not?

(and Norfolk's dropping of all charges against him is evidence supporting that), he was the victim of a series of shameful intentional torts, nevermind criminal acts.

How does the city's admission that they were unitentionally wrong support that they were intentionally wrong?

 

[Deanimator]

Is that the case here?

1. It doesn't matter. Ignorance of the law is not a defense to prosecution. The police involved knew or should have known the law. Everyone ELSE is held to that standard. So must they be.

2. Preemption is neither a new nor an obscure legal issue in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is NOT in dispute. It is a SETTLED MATTER OF LAW. And not only is it a dead issue, it is and has been a repeated subject of considerable media attention in Virginia. Those Norfolk police officers who assaulted Chet cannot make any plausible argument that they did not know the law... not as though that matters in any case.

 

[joab]

It doesn't matter.

Yes it does
The question was asked I asked if there was proof that this was the case,implication would suffice for this conversation

It would be good of you to allow those that actually asked the question to respond to counter questions, Buzz is plenty intelligent enough to carry on his own conversation

2. Preemption is neither a new nor an obscure legal issue in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is NOT in dispute. It is a SETTLED MATTER OF LAW. And not only is it a dead issue, it is and has been a repeated subject of considerable media attention in Virginia. Those Norfolk police officers who assaulted Chet cannot make any plausible argument that they did not know the law... not as though that matters in any case.

Can you show any evidence that it has entered the same realm of common knowledge that the racial issues have
I submit that it has not.
LEOs are not and should not be required to know all the laws ,only to act in good faith
So unless there is some compelling evidence (anti cop rhetoric does not count) that these officers should have common knowledge that these statutes were patently illegal, they committed no crime

 

[Deanimator]

Quote:
if Chet's claims are truthful

And if they're not?


Quote:
(and Norfolk's dropping of all charges against him is evidence supporting that), he was the victim of a series of shameful intentional torts, nevermind criminal acts.

How does the city's admission that they were unitentionally wrong support that they were intentionally wrong?
__________________

If Chet's claims are untruthful, he doesn't deserve to benefit from them... of course by dropping the charges, the City of Norfolk has conceded at the very least his claim that he was acting in no unlawful way, rendering his arrest a FALSE one. As to his specific allegations regarding the conduct of the Norfolk PD officers, those will hopefully be proved or disproved in civil and or criminal proceedings against the City of Norfolk and the individual police officers.

The members of the city council of the City of Norfolk weren't "unintentionally wrong". They didn't attempt to fund a midnight basketball program and instead pass a facially invalid preempted law. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. The police officers who unlawfully enforced that legislation knew or should have known that they were committing crimes and tortious acts. By admitting that they were WRONG, they conceded that Chet was FALSELY arrested, both a crime AND a tortious act. The manner in which Chet was treated constitutes ADDITIONAL crimes and or tortious acts which MUST be deterred through severe punishment.

 

[General Geoff]

they committed no crime

I'd say false arrest is definitely a crime

 

[joab]

of course by dropping the charges, the City of Norfolk has conceded at the very least his claim that he was acting in no unlawful way, rendering his arrest a FALSE one.

But who is really to blame for that false arrest?

As to his specific allegations regarding the conduct of the Norfolk PD officers, those will hopefully be proved or disproved in civil and or criminal proceedings against the City of Norfolk and the individual police officers.

First it must be proven that they did not act in good faith, or at least there must b some kind of compelling evidence

The members of the city council of the City of Norfolk weren't "unintentionally wrong". They didn't attempt to fund a midnight basketball program and instead pass a facially invalid preempted law. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

Who has mentioned basketball
The commission has admitted that they were that THEY KNOW NOW that they were wrong, they have made no allegations that the law somehow slipped through some basketball cracks

The police officers who unlawfully enforced that legislation knew or should have known that they were committing crimes and tortious acts

I have asked twice now for some sort of evidence that they knew or should have known, anti cop rhetoric even repeated does not count.

The manner in which Chet was treated constitutes ADDITIONAL crimes and or tortious acts which MUST be deterred through severe punishment.

You're going to have to elaborate on that
I don't recall any abuse of prisoner allegations

I'd say false arrest is definitely a crime

already addressed a couple of times, within the last few comments
And you have to read the whole comment not just the part that fits your response

 

[Wheeler44]

I don't know if this makes a difference, but in the original story about this incident the officers contacted the city attorney and he said "enforce the law".
If that is the case then I think that the city attorney is the one that needs "retraining" maybe as a litter picker upper.

 

[joab]

I don't know if this makes a difference, but in the original story about this incident the officers contacted the city attorney and he said "enforce the law".

I'd say it matters
It certainly shows that the officers were diligent in their efforts to assure that they were acting within the law
I'd call that good faith

 

[Wheeler44]

Also Joab, the police did physically restrain Chet and in doing so caused him pain and suffering, aggravating an old war injury. I don't know if that constitutes excessive force but it is sure to be a factor in the case.

 

[TallPine]

No officer can possibly know all the laws.

LEOs are not and should not be required to know all the laws

And therein lies the problem: but yet the citizen is required to know all the laws (ignorance being no excuse).

If a LEO cannot know all the laws, then there are too many laws.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

smart cop the one who called the city attorney.real smart. linda defines the GOOD FAITH part. always wanted to do the caps thing once

 

[joab]

Also Joab, the police did physically restrain Chet and in doing so caused him pain and suffering, aggravating an old war injury. I don't know if that constitutes excessive force but it is sure to be a factor in the case.

Every criminal every arrested has an old football or war injury, or the cuffs are too tight or ....
Police are supposed to physically restrain the people they are arresting

One of the first questions asked when you are being booked is if you have any arrest related injuries for that reason

If a LEO cannot know all the laws, then there are too many laws

Agreed but the cops don't write all those laws

And therein lies the problem: but yet the citizen is required to know all the laws (ignorance being no excuse).

That's what the city attorney is on call for, oops

 

[Smurfslayer]

Joab,

In Virginia new laws take effect on July 1, after the General Assembly session unless otherwise specified. As part of the process each police department is notified of new laws, including firearms. Preemption was passed in a limited form first, and subsequently applied to AUTHORITIIIS to send a message to the sovereign nation of MWAA (runs airports local to DC, 2 in Virginia).

Additionally, the code is updated and published as well as made available online. Pursuant to the 4th US circuit appeals court ruling in Lofton, publication is the 'bare minimum standard of notification required' - as applies to a conviction under a violation of the CFR. Lofton would apply here since the officers would or should have known of preemption and certainly VCDL has been in touch with Norfolk no less than a dozen times since preemption passed advising them that parks ordinances were preempted under 15.2-915

- PVC is good about putting those items in the VA Alerts, which are searchable...

So yes, settled case law that the city did know, and certainly had no excuse not to know that their so called accidental ordinance was illegal.

Accordingly, under Brown vs. Commonwealth, each arresting officer is on the hook for both assault and battery of Chet.

In Brown, officers effected an arrest on the wrong person based on a capias. They forced the arrest despite the person telling them, confirmed by ID that they were not arresting the right person. The court reasoned that when the officers arrested brown on the wrong order they committed a battery upon her person and she had the right to use force to resist the attack.

As an observation, I have never in my life heard so many PD complaints as from this meeting. If even 10% are true they have a very, very, very big problem.

 

[joab]

I'll have to look up Brown when I get home
But on the surface I don't see how a case of false arrest of the wrong person when sufficient evidence is on hand to show that it is the wrong person bears on a case of false arrest where the officers are following the law of their jurisdiction after being advised to do so by the city attorney

VCDL news breaks do not constitute common knowledge

Noun 1. common knowledge - anything generally known to everyone

 

[Wheeler44]

The law doesn't need to be common knowledge. The fact that the PD was alerted of the law and its potential implications puts the PD in the position of having to verify whether or not the law pertains. If they were alerted and chose to ignore the law then they are at fault.

 

[Blackbeard]

All right everyone, let's take a step back. The cops are not at fault. They're not lawyers. The fault lies with the city council for passing an illegal ordinance and directing the police to enforce it. The fault also lies with the city attorney who should have advised them that their ordinance was illegal.