Followup to Chet Szymecki's arrest

[Robert Hairless]

Joab argues that Norfolk's law enforcement officers did not do anything wrong unless it can be proved that the officers knew in advance that Virginia law prohibited Norfolk from making the ordinance for which they arrested this man. There's evidently no concept of "constructive notice" in Norfolk, which is a darned good thing because things would get awfully unwieldy if law enforcement officers had to know the law before arresting people for violating it.

If it can't be proved that Norfolk law enforcement officers have been notified of the Fourteenth Amendment, for example, they shouldn't be stopped from requiring citizens on the street to do necessary chores such as washing police cars, cleaning the officers' homes, or planting and picking cash crops.

And if there's no record that each and every officer has been notified of the Twenty-First Amendment, how can they be expected to know that Prohibition ended in 1933? There's every reason for them to arrest fugitive slaves and confiscate alcoholic beverages from Norfolk saloons unless someone in authority sends each of them a registered letter informing them that it's against federal law to do so even if the City Attorney tells them to do it.

With all due respect, the rest of you are trying to tie the hands of law enforcement officers in fulfilling their duty to arrest people. Where law enforcement officers are concerned, at least in Norfolk, there is no such concept as "constructive notice." If you can't prove that they knew of a law you can't hold them responsible for violating it. Life is simple for some of us.

 

[Citroen]

Heat Lightning

Because I am very interested in this case, I have read through almost 5 pages to learn of the progress. Unfortunately I have found much of the data supplied to be like heat lightning - more noise than enlightenment.

I hope that someone who actually knows the case will post follow-ups as they take place. So far all I have learned is that some people like to argue.

Unless there is an out of court settlement it would appear to this layman that it will be up to a judge and a jury to decide the merits of the complaint and I suspect that neither will consult the InterNet for advise.

When more facts are known, please, somebody post them in a new thread. Thank you.

John
Charlotte, NC

 

[brerrabbit]

Citroen

Just my two cents.

Legally as it stands, unless Chet escalates to another court, it is over.

From a standpoint of qualified immunity, the reason the judge dismissed the case in favor of the city , the city does not have a leg to stand on if it goes to a court they do not control.

Everything right now is supposition until he takes the next step. Everyone has legal arguments, and theories, but until the next step is taken, it is all guessing.

I interested in this case. As things develope, and I find them I will post them.

 

[Deanimator]

From a standpoint of qualified immunity, the reason the judge dismissed the case in favor of the city , the city does not have a leg to stand on if it goes to a court they do not control.

What specific case are you talking about?

The case AGAINST CHET was dismissed, since it would be IMPOSSIBLE to get a conviction for violating a law which is null and void. Chet could no more have been convicted of that of which he was charged, than a Black person in Selma, AL could be convicted today of refusing to yield their seat on a bus to a White person. Norfolk's gun ban is as null and void as any law mandating racially separate public accomodations.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Citroen, this forum is a discussion forum and not a place for news updates. If you're interested in the progress of events instead of what people think or believe, you might want to search for news stories on the media web sites.

As for the disagreements here, I know just what you mean. I've never understood why anyone disagrees with anything I say. That's their fault, though, not mine. If you don't like disagreements, read only my messages. I never disagree with myself unless I've read something I posted that I don't like, in which case I let me have a piece of my mind.

I don't know whether anyone will follow your instructions about posting new information in a new thread, though. They never do what I want either.

 

[bowline]

I am also interested in the outcome of the case. I'm a little confused, though, and hope one of the legal eagles here can straighten me out.
Why would the police call the city attorney? As far as I knew, he is not part of the justice system, just the legal advisor for the incorporated city of Norfolk.
Further exposing my legal ignorance, I would have thought that in a situation where the legality of the law is in question, one would want a neutral or third-party interpretation of same rather than ask the drafter "hey, is your law actually legal?"

 

[joab]

I believe that the strictness of that rule has been lessened somewhat by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights to the extent that if you reasonably rely upon IRS advice you will not be criminally liable, nor will civil penalties be applied.

We have a winner in the don't take the bait and hook contest

That would mean that it is possible for a well reported law to be misunderstood or even unknown by the very people that it effects, interesting concept

Joab argues that Norfolk's law enforcement officers did not do anything wrong

Maybe you should spend less time coming up with cute responses and more actually reading what I said
You want to show me where I said they did nothing wrong?

I have made and stood by one point and one point only here, as always.
It is amazing tome that people who consider themselves smart cannot follow that one point
Nowhere have I said that there was no wrong done
I have repeatedly said that the calls for ruination of the officers lives and federal jail time are unnecessarily harsh unless it can be proven that they di not act in good faith and with due care
Please argue against my argument and not the one you wish I was making.

 

[Deanimator]

I have repeatedly said that the calls for ruination of the officers lives and federal jail time are unnecessarily harsh unless it can be proven that they di not act in good faith and with due care
Please argue against my argument and not the one you wish I was making.

There was NO "good faith" from start to finish.

The officers knew or should have known that their actions in enforcing a law invalidated by a widely known state preemption law, were themselves unlawful. That's not "good faith".

The officer who TIGHTENED the handcuffs on Chet after being told that they were TOO tight exercised not "good faith", but malice and infamous cruelty. That officer should not only be punished by crushing civil judgements, but criminal prosecution for battery and violation of civil rights as well.

The City Attorney, who can't POSSIBLY argue "ignorance" and hold the position which he has, chose to maliciously greenlight a false arrest. That is not "good faith". If he claims at his civil trial to have not known the law, he should be prosecuted for perjury. He should be fired for incompetence, disbarred for misconduct, and sued for a large chunk of his assets. Criminal prosecution for conspiracy to deprive Chet of his civil rights shouldn't be ruled out.

Every one of these malefactors deserves to have the crushing weight of civil judgements imposed upon them, in some cases accompanied by criminal prosecution.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

if you were a true hero of the revolution you would understand

 

[legaleagle_45]

That would mean that it is possible for a well reported law to be misunderstood or even unknown by the very people that it effects, interesting concept

Yep....

Also questionable is the suggestion that if the Government is not bound by its agents' statements, then citizens will not trust them and will instead seek private advice from lawyers, accountants, and others, creating wasteful expenses. Although mistakes occur, we may assume with confidence that Government agents attempt conscientious performance of their duties and in most cases provide free and valuable information to those who seek advice about Government programs. A rule of estoppel might create not more reliable advice, but less advice. See Hansen, supra, at 788-789, and n. 5. The natural consequence of a rule that made the Government liable for the statements of its agents would be a decision to cut back and impose strict controls upon Government provision of information in order to limit liability. Not only would valuable informational programs be lost to the public, but the greatest impact of this loss would fall on those of limited means, who can least afford the alternative of private advice. See Braunstein, In Defense of a Traditional Immunity - Toward an Economic Rationale for Not Estopping the Government, 14 Rutgers L. J. 1 (1982). The inevitable fact of occasional individual hardship cannot undermine the interest of the citizenry as a whole in the ready availability of Government information. The rationale of the Appropriations Clause is that if individual hardships are to be remedied by payment of Government funds, it must be at the instance of Congress.

OPM v. RICHMOND, 496 U.S. 414 (1990).

Essentially, you have the right to get advice from the government, but you have absolutely no right to assume they are telling you the truth.

I do not make these things up, LOL.

 

[Mannix]

Ignorance is no defense, law enforcement or not.

Can't remember who said it but,

If you can't follow the law, tough cookies.

If it would apply to someone who has no formal education, then it should apply to someone who went to school and got a degree in criminal justice.

 

[Deanimator]

If it would apply to someone who has no formal education, then it should apply to someone who went to school and got a degree in criminal justice.

PRECISELY.

So far, I don't recall any of those who are claiming that the police should be able to avoid prosecution or civil liability via a claim of "ignorance", affording citizens the same courtesy. They would allow those TRAINED IN THE LAW, and responsible for ENFORCING it, to evade its application to themselves by claiming "ignorance", while ruthlessly imposing the full force of the law upon citizens with NO training in the law, nor any experience in enforcing it. They would hold a functionally illiterate highschool dropout to a HIGHER standard than that to which they would hold a police officer with ten years of experience enforcing the law.

That's not just irrational. It's ANTI-rational.

Such a formulation would create a two tiered society of police and all others. Equal protection under the law would be destroyed with absolute finality.

 

[joab]

If it would apply to someone who has no formal education, then it should apply to someone who went to school and got a degree in criminal justice.

Street cops have degrees in criminal justice now?

The officer who TIGHTENED the handcuffs on Chet after being told that they were TOO tight exercised not "good faith", but malice and infamous cruelty.

Can you PROVE that that actually HAPPENED or are you simply assuming it did because the person being handcuffed said SO?

How many times had he been cuffed before? Yeah it matters it really does

The first question he was asked at booking was if he had any arrest injuries, what was his verifiable answer? (If he was even booked I don't remember

I have repeatedly asked for any proof of your accusations, you have repeatedly ignored or refused to give ANY
Instead you choose only to ramp up the melodrama

Either address the issue or be ignored

The City Attorney, who can't POSSIBLY argue "ignorance" and hold the position which he has, chose to maliciously greenlight a false arrest. That is not "good faith". If he claims at his civil trial to have not known the law, he should be prosecuted for perjury. He should be fired for incompetence, disbarred for misconduct, and sued for a large chunk of his assets. Criminal prosecution for conspiracy to deprive Chet of his civil rights shouldn't be ruled out.

For the very last time
I have never condoned the actions of the city attorney. It would take the simplest of research to see that I hold him majorily responsible
Nowhere habve I even implied that he acted in good faith
Even the most obtuse among the participants knows this
For the absolute last time
Argue against the argument that I am arguing and present verification of the "facts" that you are presenting

Like it or not qualified immunity is established through the courts
Change i if you want, or continue to neuter the police and then whine when crime gets out of hand
I know first hand what kind of people are waiting when the wussification of America permeates the police force

But by all means lets get these evil old cops off the street and replace them with timid new cops who are afraid to lift a finger when a real crime is being committed
That makes so much more sense than simply disciplining and retraining those that screwed up while performing their duties in good faith after verifying their actions with the highest legal authority in their chain of command

 

[WeedWhacker]

Street cops have degrees in criminal justice now?

Yes. Or equivalent experience in military law enforcement, supplemented by focussed training at regional police acadamies. Or simply heading to the police acadamies after being hired.

Way to avoid the question, however: "shouldn't 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' apply to everyone equally?"

Also note that that phrase applies to natural law only, such as murder, rape, theft, etc. It is *impossible* to know all the bureaucratic nonsense which supposedly applies to a given person in the USA at any particular time and place, what with there being millions of applicable laws, all constantly changing.

 

[Deanimator]

Like it or not qualified immunity is established through the courts

...unless the individual pierces it by acting outside of the normal scope of his duties... which the Norfolk cops did, by violating the law.

That's why they call it QUALIFIED immunity.

As to why I should believe Chet, well I can believe a law abiding citizen, OR I can believe someone who wasn't there, who's defending people who have been shown with 100% certainty to have committed criminal acts...

 

[Deanimator]

But by all means lets get these evil old cops off the street and replace them with timid new cops who are afraid to lift a finger when a real crime is being committed

I want new cops who are afraid to commit crimes and tortious acts. Impoverishing the cops who committed crimes and tortious acts is a good way to achieve that. If nothing else, if Chet deigns to settle with the city, any settlement must of needs require the permanent firing of the police who falsely arrested and battered him. That in combination with punishing judgements against those police officers will be an ironclad guarantee that no Norfolk police officer will EVER enforce another preempted law. As the Chinese say, "Kill the chicken to frighten the monkey."

 

[gezzer]

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

From a former LEO, They committed a crime. Not bashing but any cop who buys this statement above is THE PROBLEM. Where is your professionalism here? You have shown NONE what so ever. (anti cop rhetoric does not count) No but anti non-professional, ignorant of the basic law they are to enforce, Jack Booted thug counts.

The cure is criminal charges against all the officers involved up to and including the Chief.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Joab:

Joab argues that Norfolk's law enforcement officers did not do anything wrong

Maybe you should spend less time coming up with cute responses and more actually reading what I said
You want to show me where I said they did nothing wrong?

I have made and stood by one point and one point only here, as always.
It is amazing tome that people who consider themselves smart cannot follow that one point
Nowhere have I said that there was no wrong done
I have repeatedly said that the calls for ruination of the officers lives and federal jail time are unnecessarily harsh unless it can be proven that they di not act in good faith and with due care
Please argue against my argument and not the one you wish I was making.

I'm trying hard to read what you actually wrote, Joab, but it's really hard going because your slash and burn tactics get in the way. It's as if you're more interested in them than in much else. So please, I beg of you, give me credit for trying? How about extra credit because I try to read what you say more closely than you seem to do?

Look up at your unattributed quotation of me, for example. What I actually wrote was "Joab argues that Norfolk's law enforcement officers did not do anything wrong unless it can be proved that the officers knew in advance that Virginia law prohibited Norfolk from making the ordinance for which they arrested this man."

But you quote only the first part of my sentence: "Joab argues that Norfolk's law enforcement officers did not do anything wrong" is what you represent me as saying. Then, after slashing me for not having read what you wrote, you say essentially what I said you have been arguing.

The problem is not that I don't understand what you're doing but that I do understand it and find it most entertaining.

My own favorite parts of what you wrote here, by the way, are those in which you cast doubt on the knowledge and understanding of the events in Norfolk, Virginia, contributed by those who live in that state and city. They are there and speak from knowledge and experience of the events and their background. You are 764 miles away, in Ocee, Florida, and pass judgments on what they know and live firsthand. Of course you don't need knowledge or experience to do it. All you need do is demand that people prove things to you to your satisfaction before you entitle them to come to their own conclusions. I've seen it before and always find it to be as much fun as your signature:

I have made my opinons crystal clear for anybody that want's to read them.
If you would like to discuss what I have actually written or try to change my views, I welcome the conversation

I have no interest in even trying to change your views. I don't think I could do it and I'm enamored of them anyway. Chill out, dude.

 

[joab]

Way to avoid the question, however: "shouldn't 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' apply to everyone equally?"

I avoided nothing
simply did not feel like repeating myself once again
Especially to someone who tries to make me believe that street cops get any where near a "degree in criminology" or that military experience equates to criminology degrees or that cops are hired and then sent to academy for less than a year where they get these degrees

Also note that that phrase applies to natural law only, such as murder, rape, theft, etc. It is *impossible* to know all the bureaucratic nonsense which supposedly applies to a given person in the USA at any particular time and place, what with there being millions of applicable laws, all constantly changing.

True and verifiable ignorance of these natural laws you speak of would probably would probably get you a not guilty by reason insanity or mental defect verdict so in that sense no ignorance of the law being no excuse does not apply
But these officers are being accused of none of these crimes, surprisingly
The rst of yur posts kinda agrees with my point completely actually, so I am at a loss to figure out why you are using it to counter my argument

As the Chinese say, "Kill the chicken to frighten the monkey."

As the Americans say
Put up or shut up
You have made several accusations, not allegations, without even trying to provide proof, relying instead on melodrama and hyperbole
You are sent to the ignore corner until you learn to debate in an adult fashion

 

[joab]

But you quote only the first part of my sentence

I highlighted the part that makes the entire comment irrelevant and false

And actually Robert
If you read as well as you say you have you would see that I have requested proof "or even supported speculation", to counter the supported speculation I have provided

 

[Novus Collectus]

Joab, for someone who wants to defend LEOs, you seem to be knocking them with your statement that they are not likely to be anywhere near a degree in criminology.
Yes, some street officers actually do have degrees in criminology with many more working towards such a degree, and sergeants and lieutenants often have them. Some street LEOs go on to become judges even.

As far as "proof" goes, yes in criminal courts there has to be proof they knew they were breaking the law, but often in civil courts it is the opposite. The cops have to prove enough to convince a jury well enough they did NOT know the law........good luck to them for trying to convince a jury that a well known preemption law in that district was not known by LAW enforcement.

As far as the handcuff complaint, it is not just the man's word alone and there were witnessess present.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Street cops have degrees in criminal justice now?

every department i've ever looked at to apply for has had a 2 year degree as part of the requirement.

 

[joab]

Joab, for someone who wants to defend LEOs, you seem to be knocking them with your statement that they are not likely to be anywhere near a degree in criminology.

I have not defended LEOs
I have simply said over and over and over that these men do not deserve the punishment that the usual suspects here would mete out
Check the thread and you will see this

I know many cops and can tell you that there is no requirement that a cop have a criminology degree
I'm sure that many do go on to become lawyers and judges. When you retire at 40 second careers are not that difficult to obtain.
But that in no way even suggests that a cop has a degree in criminology
If you believe that I am wrong please provide proof of this requirement as I cannot prove a negative
And I am sure that there are cops who want to further there career with advanced course, but that again does not mean that cops have degrees in criminology as the poster stated

The cops have to prove enough to convince a jury well enough they did NOT know the law

Or that they acted in good faith by relying on the word of the City Attorney, the highest legal authority in their chain of command

As far as the handcuff complaint, it is not just the man's word alone and there were witnesses present.

And the witnesses can confirm what?
That the man said the cuffs were too tight

Just about everybodyl ever arrested has made that complaint

Being cuffed for the first time is a traumatic experience
The suspects perception of too tight does not hold a whole lot of validity
If the fingers didn't turn blue and there was no bruising, the cuffs most likely were not too tight.
And yes I do speak from experience

 

[Robert Hairless]

Joab:

I highlighted the part that makes the entire comment irrelevant and false

And actually Robert
If you read as well as you say you have you would see that I have requested proof "or even supported speculation", to counter the supported speculation I have provided

Ahh. You "highlighted the part that makes the entire comment irrelevant and false." Got it.

I'm positively infatuated with your concept of "supported speculation" at your distance in Ocee, Florida, to challenge the firsthand knowledge and experience of those in Norfolk, Virginia, whose informed opinions you discount and whose testimony you scorn. That's some powerful "supported speculation." I'd like to get some of that stuff. It's obviously powerful enough to trump the knowledge and experience of people with law enforcement backgrounds who have contradicted you. Of course you know a cop and maybe they don't, or at least they haven't provided sufficient proof or supported speculation that they do. I passed a cop on the street today and he was in a marked car, which should count for something. I saw two of them yesterday. So I see your cop and raise you two.

I've posted many messages supporting your argument here so I am absolutely shocked to be told now that I didn't understand it. And I thought we were doing so well as a team--you and me against all of the people who probably thought that both of us were irrational, ill-informed, opinionated, and closeminded. Darn.

The Norfolk Police Department has a Police Academy and all recruits must attend it.

 

[joab]

You "highlighted the part that makes the entire comment irrelevant and false." Got i

Then please show me where I said that the cops did nothing wrong
You seem to want to harp on this point so back it up
Not with your pseudo intellectual half witisms but with an actual quote of me saying that cops did nothing wrong

I'm positively infatuated with your concept of "supported speculation" at your distance in Ocee, Florida, to challenge the firsthand knowledge and experience of those in Norfolk, Virginia, whose informed opinions you discount and whose testimony you scorn

Who here is from Norfolk and what "testimony" have I scorned and what informed opinions have been presented much less discounted

I have addressed a few but I don't believe I have rrisen to the same level of scorn and discounting that you have

The Norfolk Police Department has a Police Academy and all recruits must attend it.

Most if not all city police forces have a mandatory academy for recruits, they made a whole series of movies dealing with the subject
Is there a point in there?
Or are you now trying to twist it around that I have somehow denied this?