[Peace] Report of Lori Serb's trial on ucimc

[Randall Cotton]

Please see my comments below within Dr. Rokke's text...

----- Original Message -----
From: <Dlind49 at aol.com>
To: <Kranich at WILL.uiuc.edu>; <peace at lists.groogroo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace] Report of Lori Serb's trial on ucimc


> I would like to comment on the information provided in this story written
by
> Kim regarding Lori Serb's trial.
>
> "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. "
>
> Let's get something clear. Lori's actions were flat wrong and illegal!

Dr. Rokke, I'm not sure anyone is disputing this. Lori realizes her actions
in taking the camera and attempting to damage it were wrong (it was a
disposable camera, by the way, and apparently it was not damaged). When
asked by the police, the camera's owner refused to press charges.

Lori fully acknowledges that taking the camera was wrong and has apologized
for this in person at the Sunday, May 18 AWARE meeting.

The issue here is the charge of resisting an officer. Completely separate
issue. Do you really believe that if someone does something wrong, it's
correct for them to be punished for something else? How about when they're
not guilty of doing something else?

> if Lori does not desire to have her picture taken she was in public
involved in
> a  public demonstration and can not prevent a photo from being taken. The
> other person had the freedom to take Lori's picture and Lori can not say
or do
> anything to stop her. If Lori did not like the fact that her picture was
taken
> she should have asked the police officers who were on duty for assistance
but
> the woman still had the right to take Lori's picture.  Lori had absolutely
no
> right to act as described above, She was flat  wrong and she willfully
violated
> criminal laws! Her action cannot be justified at all. The simple fact is
Lori
> actually assaulted the woman,

Why do you assume Lori even touched the woman, let alone physically harmed
the woman in any way, let alone "assault"?

> picture taker, when Lori started a physical
> struggle with the end result as stated "Ms. Serb eventually pulled the
camera
> from the woman's hand, threw it to the ground and stomped on it". Lori can
not
> under any circumstances take some else's property by use of force and
destroy
> it.

Again, no disagreement here, and again, that's not the issue.

> As to the police officers actions, he was in uniform, and probably tasked
to
> protect all participants. When Lori initiated a struggle she was
committing a
> crime thus the police officer had the duty to act. HE WAS RIGHT!!!  I for
one
> applaud his actions. He did his job. If he did not act he would have been
> wrong.

Now we're getting to the issue - how the police acted in response to the
situation. You say he had a duty to act and he did, so he did his job he was
right. Don't you care *how* he acted? What if he shot Lori instead? That
would qualify as acting.

When the officer arrived at the disturbance, Lori had already broken away
from the camera owner and was something like 10 feet away from her, trying
to stomp on the disposable camera. The officer could have appeared in front
of Lori and said "Stop. Police." I was there, directly observing, from about
5 feet away, and I think that would've been enough. Instead, the officer ran
full steam toward Lori from behind her, said nothing to announce his
presence, gave absolutely no warning and flat-out decked her from behind,
face down into the ground. Given this account (I was a witness and testified
in court) do you honestly feel you can judge that the officer was right in
acting the way he did? Given this account, can you honestly judge that Lori
did, in fact, resist the officer? What, exactly, was there to resist?

> So I suggest that Lori get over it and pay the fine and never do this
> again. I suggest that everyone learn form this. Simply, I am surprised
that more
> charges were not filed.  They should have been. Lori Serb; as acknowledged
per
> her own comments as reported in this news story; took personal property, a
> camera, my force during a physical struggle and destroyed the camera.

Perhaps charges related to the camera should have been filed. However, the
camera owner refused, Lori knows what she did with the camera was wrong and
apologized to all in AWARE for it. All that's old news.

Lori's charge and fine have absolutely nothing to do with the camera or the
camera owner. It's about the police, who, in my opinion, went way overboard
(for whatever reason) in dealing with this incident and then tried to paper
over it with a false charge.

> Anyone who wants to demonstrate must comply with all laws and Lori's
actions
> just because she did not want her picture taken during her participation
in a
> public demonstration were WRONG!

You're 100% right on that.

>I suggest that Lori acknowledge her actions as wrong.

Already happened long ago.

> I suggest that Lori apologize to the woman, the police officer, and
> the court. She has wasted valuable time of this police officer, other
> officers, and the court trying to defend her own illegal actions as she
admits
> occured:   "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. "

Dr. Rokke, I must admit I'm disappointed at the flaws in your logic, your
apparent tendency to jump to unfounded conclusions and how easily you are
confusing two completely separate issues here. It casts doubt on your
credibility and that's unfortunate.

R