[Peace-discuss] More questions/Lori's trial

[Dlind49 at aol.com]

In a message dated 7/20/03 10:55:24 AM Central Daylight Time, 
jencart at mycidco.com writes:

<< Having attended Lori's trial and heard evidence from both sides, my 
questions are --
Jennifer has asked some good questions. As I understand it here are some 
comments to think about. 

 
 1. Why didn't any of the officers act as soon as they saw the pro-war couple 
enter the buffer zone and then the pro-peace zone?  It would seem that they 
had time to do this.  They could have prevented the woman's sticking the camera 
in pro-peace faces while making nasty statements, Lori from grabbing the 
camera, the man from hitting Lori, Lori from stomping the camera.....Aren't police 
charged w/ keeping the peace?  Their choices re when and how to intervene are 
extremely troubling to me.....
 

The Pro war couple can walk any place and take pictures any time and 
"unfortunately" say "nasty" comments. Police have no jurisduction. Lori's illegal 
actions were the only time when the police could take action. And when LORI 
INITIATED THE ACTION TO TAKE AWAY PERSONAL PROPERTY THE OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO 
DEFEND THEMSELVES AND TO PREVENT THE PERSON FROM TAKING THE OWNER'S PROPERTY AWAY.  
"According to Ms. Serb, she attempted to take the disposable camera away from 
the picture taker. A struggle ensued and Ms. Serb eventually pulled the 
camera from the woman's hand, threw it to the ground and stomped on it." 


 2. Why on earth did the unusually garbed (shorts and yellow shirt/official 
police bike uniform) officer tackle (yeah, even the prosecuting attorney used 
that term!) Lori for what was a minor infraction of the law -- wouldn't it have 
made sense for him to approach her from the front w/ his pad and pen, id 
himself as Officer Willis, move between Lori and the camera, tell her to back off? 
Take down her name, tell her the charge, give her a tcket/summons to appear 
in court to answer for her behavior? Take down names of witnesses, tell the 
crowd to disperse..... End of story, Lori would plead guilty to assault or 
misdemeanor/plea bargain for the lesser charge, pay her fine, court costs, lawyer's 
fee..... Lori would still apologise to AWARE, and we ALL would've learn a 
lesson, esp those of us honest enough to admit that we could have reacted as Lori 
did -- or worse..... BTW, testimony in court did not deal w/ the 
appropriateness of police actions/reactions 
 but w/ whether or not Officer Willis said "Police" before tackling Lori -- 3 
officers say he DID plus testified he said she was "under arrest."  Lori and 
her witnesses say he did NOT id himself before or after he tackled her and 
never said she was "under arrest.. Lori tho't it was a pro-war guy -- prob 
assumed an officer wouldn't do anything so totally inappropriate and stupid.... When 
she saw a reg uniform pants leg to the side of her -- still pinned under 
Officer Willis -- she realized her "attacker" was actually a policeman, finally 
got her L arm free, allowed herself to be cuffed and led to the squad car w/o 
resisting.  BTW, BOTH sides agree to this, the "resisting arrest" charge was 
whether or not Lori knew the 275 lbs on top of her was an officer AND that she 
was under arrest, and was trying to keep her L arm under her to avoid being 
arrested. 
 
That uniform has been worn as part of regular duty. Nothing unusual at all. 
Police officers do not have the luxury of taking chances during arrests. And 
the event has described  "According to Ms. Serb, she attempted to take the 
disposable camera away from the picture taker. A struggle ensued and Ms. Serb 
eventually pulled the camera from the woman's hand, threw it to the ground and 
stomped on it. "  is not a minor infraction.  Jennifer's comment that "we ALL 
would've learn a lesson, esp those of us honest enough to admit that we could have 
reacted as Lori did -- or worse.." is where my real concern rests.  These 
actions can never be tolerated at all. Especially similar actions by other 
"Peaceful" protestors. If the actions never occurred then the police never would 
have had to take action. SO DO NOT BLAME THE POLICE. 

 3. What kind of 275 lb yahoo -- supposedly trained to remain impartial, 
defuse violatile situations, behave calmy, rationally and appropriately -- tackles 
a woman, knocks her to the ground, pins her w/ his L knee in her back for 
stomping on a camera, such a minor infraction?  What's he gonna do if he thinks 
someone is actually dangerous and needs to be restrained -- club or shoot them? 
 Officer Willis  gives the Champaign Police a bad name and should be removed 
from the force @ once, he's not man enough for the job, and the officers and 
department who backed him should be ashamed  of themselves.....
 Hope this results in staff training and some serious weeding out....

If you have ever seen police officers killed or wounded because they took the 
very nice way out when arresting someone even during traffic stops or 
disorderly conduct arrests  of persons of ant size, age, or gender then you would 
think twice and especially because Lori had already used force to take away the 
person's camera "According to Ms. Serb, she attempted to take the disposable 
camera away from the picture taker. A struggle ensued and Ms. Serb eventually 
pulled the camera from the woman's hand, threw it to the ground and stomped on 
it." Staff training will probably occur and I will include it in my courses 
that I teach for law enforcement.     

 
 4. Why was Lori charged w/ resisting arrest?  W/ 275 lb Officer Willis 
pinning her w/ his L knee in her back (as per his testimony) how was she supposed 
to free her L arm which was pinned underneath her?  
 No one on either side argues that once freed from the officer's tonnage she 
allowed herself to be handcuffed and went willing into the squad car.

Should Lori have been charged with the other possible offenses or only 
Resisting arrest? The answer as to why was she charged with resisting arrest and if 
the charge is valid will be decided in court as it should be. 
 
 5. And, even afer the tackle and pin, why were the handcuffs and squad car 
necessary?  Again an op for Officer Willis to get out that ticket book and 
write her up, etc.

You always handcuff a suspect or person who has been arrested. That is 
required and necessary for safety of all individuals, police, accused, and 
bystanders. 
 
 6. Doug, I assume that you were not present @ the actual event or trial?  I 
think, had you been @ either, you'd have a very different take on all this.  

Jennifer, you are correct. If I had been present during the incident I would 
have stopped it before police got involved. I can only wonder in amazement why 
those who were present did not stop it right away. As to the police officers 
actions the court/ judge will decide to convict or aquit based on the evidence 
and law. Thus the court will decide what is correct as should happen.  


** 
 Jenifer C.
 
  >>