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

[Dlind49 at aol.com]

Bias? For whom? The police or Lori? Niether - just considering what is right 
and wrong.  Two separate issues? Not hardly. The police officers could have 
arrested Lori on various charges without the woman's consent because they saw it 
happen.  In  fact anyone who saw it happen legally could have arrested Lori.  
But more important any individual from AWARE or any individual from the Pro 
America rally side should have stopped Lori immediately! This incident should 
never have happened or escalated to the point where police had to take action.

By Chapter 38: Criminal Law and Procedure definitions:

quote 

"Assault: (a) a person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, 
engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a 
battery.  Assault is a Class C misdemeanor.

Battery: (a) a person commits battery if they intentionally or knowingly 
without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes bodily harm to an 
individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an 
individual.

Battery is a Class A misdemeanor 

Theft: (a) A person commits theft when he/she knowingly: (1) obtains  or 
exerts unauthorized control over property of the owner; or (3) Obtains by threat 
control over property of the owner and (a) Intends to deprive the owner 
permanently use or benefit of the property.

Theft of property from the person not exceeding $300 in value is a Class 3 
felony."

end quote

It seems that the police officers and D.A. have been very lenient considering 
what everyone including Lori acknowledges occurred and obviously the officers 
witnessed.  So let's look at only the last action according to the story that 
cites her. "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." 
 Thus as acknowledged, Lori commited theft and was willfully trying to 
deprive the owner permanent use or benefit of the property / camera when she stomped 
on it. These actions by definition fullfill both of the the statuatory 
requirements for "theft" as defined in the Illinois Criminal Law and Procedure and 
that action is by definition a class 3 felony. Separate actions? The officer 
was preventing the commission of a crime and the continuation of a series of 
offenses that started when Lori tried to prevent the woman from taking her 
picture (no problem) but then initiated a struggle to take the woman's camera away, 
took her camera away, stomped on it to destroy it, then once subdued by the 
officer attempted to get up. These actions in this case as defined under 
Illinois Chapter 38 Criminal law and Procedure probably include: (1) a class C 
misdeameanor, (2) a class A misdemeanor, and (3) a class 3 felony without even 
considering the resisting arrest charge. Thankfully the only charge included in the 
trial is "resisting arrest".       

Bias? No! Just understanding what is written in the code and agreeing with 
the officer(s) whose duty it is to uphold the law and prevent the commission of 
a criminal offense.  When one commits a criminal offense or series of offenses 
in the presence of police officers or anyone else in public view then they 
can be assured or should realize that they will be arrested.  The woman who Lori 
forcefully took the camera from does not have to sign a complaint. By the way 
any person who witnessed this event could have arrested Lori with complete 
legal authority. MORE IMPORTANT, any person who witnessed these actions should 
have stopped them immediately.  THAT RAISES THE ISSUE OF "ACCOUNTABILITY" AS 
DISCUSSED UNDER THE CHAPTER 38 SECTION "PARTIES TO CRIME".  But let's leave that 
alone. Ricki, Randy, and Jan: considering that all of you have stated you 
were there then all or each of you should have stopped Lori from doing what she 
did and was continuing to do! And finally all of these actions were part of the 
same criminal offense or series of offenses, leading to the officers actions. 

As to resisting arrest- a person can not do anything at all. Simple as that.  
  

Justice?  I hope so. The officers are right.  

I am glad that Lori has apologized. I commend her for doing so! However, this 
action and consequent actions have in my opinion hurt "AWARE"  to my own 
dismay at a time during our nation's history when "AWARE" and its members and all 
others around our nation and the world who peacefully protest what has 
happened and continues to happen are needed.   

.... and by the way I fully endorse peaceful protest and will continue my own 
efforts to protest what has occurred and is occurring (I think that I am 
doing pretty good job all at home and over the world).  AT THE SAME TIME A LINE 
MUST BE DRAWN.  This time the police officers are right and I think that they 
were very lenient considering the situation that all acknowledged occurred!  

....... either way the issue will be settled in court by the judge. 

My question is why was the incident not stopped right away?  Where were 
Lori's friends? If I was there I would have stopped it immediately!  
 
doug