Title: Mentally Ill Homeless Man Severely Beaten By Police Because His Beach Umbrella was Too Big Source:
Free Thought Project URL Source:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/me ... ten-police-beach-umbrella-big/ Published:Apr 24, 2015 Author:Cassandra Fairbanks Post Date:2015-04-24 08:56:07 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:6695 Comments:47
A video released on Wednesday captured eight Los Angeles police officers beating, tasing, and hogtying a mentally ill homeless man as he tried to enjoy the simple pleasure of a day at the beach.
The man and his lawyer say that this abuse at the hands of the LAPD has been a pattern over the past year, and his hospital records show it. They are now calling for a federal investigation of the violations of his civil rights.
In the video taken on August 7, 2014, eight officers are seen brutalizing Samuel Calhoun Arrington, 52, who suffers from bipolar disorder. The incident began when he reportedly refused to sign a citation for “items placed on (the) city beach” and “property outside of designated space.”
What horrible items could have had on the beach, you ask? A chair and umbrella, which everyone else brings to the beach all summer long without being targeted for assault.
“To me, what they did in full view of every person on Venice Beach was to strip a homeless man, someone mentally ill, of their last shred of humanity,” Cleo Battle, Arrington’s sister told local news outlet KTLA.
According to the police report, Arrington had lunged at officers and attempted to grab one of their belts. Nazareth Haysbert, the attorney representing Arrington, told KTLA that the report stated his client “immediately broke the officer’s hold by aggressively moving his arms forward and then pulling his arms toward his body.”
In the video, we see the unarmed Arrington lounging in his chair, entirely non-aggressive, and doing nothing like what is described from the report as the gang of officers begin to assault him. The officers also wrote in the report that there was no video taken of the incident. This is in spite of the witness video that was released which clearly shows LAPD’s Sgt. Skinner recording the assault on what appears to be her cell phone in a red case.
The woman filming the video can be heard saying, “they know that he’s not going to sign it because he didn’t do anything, but that’s what they’re hoping so that they can take him.” She begins to explain to other witnesses that the man was being cited for the umbrella and asserts it was just because they wanted to get rid of him. As the officers begin to tase the defenseless man, she screams at the officers repeatedly that they do not need to tase him.
“NO, YOU NEED TO STOP! I’M ALREADY HERE, DON’T YOU DARE PUSH ON ME!” she screams at an officer who attempts to push her away from filming their abuse.
Another woman in the background can be heard screaming that the officers are evil. The woman filming berates the officers for being in the wrong by putting their hands on her as well as on the man that they are assaulting in front of her.
A large crowd gathers to watch the assault and shame the officers for their disgusting behavior.
“The man is bleeding from head to toe, this is what our police do, in the United States. Instead of getting the criminals, they’re harassing-” she begins, “now they’ve got him like a slave back in the 30’s and 40’s and 50’s and they’ve got him- they’re carrying him like an animal!”
The crowd can be heard yelling obscenities at the police, as Sgt. Skinner, who is still filming, attempts to get the brave and bold woman who is filming to give up her information. At this point, others jump in with their cameras filming Skinner, and she gives up on her attempts at getting the witness to identify herself. Eventually, the disgraceful police walk away from the screams of angry witnesses.
Arrington was ultimately charged with resisting arrest despite there being no lawful cause to arrest him in the first place.
“He was hospitalized and later charged with felony resisting arrestand remained in county jail for over one month on the charges,” Haysbert wrote in a letter to the FBI.
To throw salt on wounds, the callous officers also left the man’s few personal possessions on the beach and never recovered them,including his clothing, bicycle, bookbag, and medical card.
Haysbert has also stated that Arrington was brutalized by the officers on two other occasions that year.
On January 5, Arrington was tased and beaten by LAPD officers. Several months later, on July 29, less than two weeks before the incident seen in this video, he was hospitalized with neck, back, and shoulder injuries. His lawyer claims these were the very same officers seen on video in the August assault.
“Arrington was beaten by LAPD officers so badly that he needed 18 staples to close a large wound on his head,” Haysbert told KTLA regarding a third incident which occured on June 27, 2011. “He was hospitalized and then jailed for over 18 months where he suffered repeated episodes of fainting, severe headaches and syncope.”
His lawyer Haysbert believes that collectively, these assaults show a pattern of deprivation of his client’s civil rights. His family asserts that this pattern of abuse has worsened Arrington’s illness.
“The video recording raises concern that the LAPD officers intentionally fabricated and, or withheld crucial evidence that may have resulted in the dismissal of criminal charges against Mr. Arrington,” Haysbert stated. “The willful concealment of this evidence holds criminal implications for these officers.”
This disgusting display of abuse MUST be investigated.
You can contact the Department of Justice via Twitter to demand justice for Samuel Arrington by including the Twitter handle @civilrights.
#1. To: Cassandra Fairbanks@ Free Thought Project, Deckard (#0)
The incident began when he reportedly refused to sign a citation for “items placed on (the) city beach” and “property outside of designated space.”
It is truly ridiculous that it takes that many offices to serve a citation. Further disturbing that it devolves into blood without the apparent need for violence. The video shows that the man was not violent, yet it shows that the police were ready to execute the offender if they thought it necessary. It would not take much to "grab the wrong weapon" and shoot the man with a service pistol instead of a taser...
I would like to see someone smash the skull of the nosy and intrusive bitch recording the incident and interfering with police business.
Then you are a piece of shit. People are on a public beach and free to record. If I was recording and you tried to take my camera. I would beat you into a coma.
#41. To: A K A Stone, --- misterwhite threatens anyone recording him, anywhere..... (#4)
misterwhite (#3)
I would like to see someone smash the skull of the nosy and intrusive bitch recording the incident and interfering with police business. --- misterwhite
Then you are a piece of shit. People are on a public beach and free to record. If I was recording and you tried to take my camera. I would beat you into a coma. ---- A K A Stone
You record me (as a private citizen) in public without my permission and I'll beat you into a coma. And doctors will have to surgically remove your cellphone from your ass. --- So there. ----- misterwhite
Wow!! Little did we know that misterwhite was such a violent psycho.
If you happen to be visiting in Illinois, watch out for any funny old guys who may be in the background of any pictures or videos you take!
Then you are a piece of shit. People are on a public beach and free to record. If I was recording and you tried to take my camera. I would beat you into a coma. ---- A K A Stone
Maybe I shouldn't say stuff like that because you might think I'm serious.
But I wouldn't let someone stop me recording if I could help it.
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
No. 11-1286
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANITA ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 10 C 5235—Suzanne B. Conlon, Judge.
ARGUED SEPTEMBER 13, 2011—DECIDED MAY 8, 2012
Before POSNER, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
SYKES, Circuit Judge. The Illinois eavesdropping statute makes it a felony to audio record “all or any part of any conversation” unless all parties to the conversation give their consent. 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/14-2(a)(1). The statute covers any oral communication regardless of whether the communication was intended to be private. Id. 5/14-1(d). The offense is normally a class 4 felony but is elevated to a class 1 felony—with a possible prison term of four to fifteen years—if one of the recorded individuals is performing duties as a law-enforcement officer. Id. 5/14-4(b). Illinois does not prohibit taking silent video of police officers performing their duties in public; turning on a microphone, however, triggers class 1 felony punishment.
The question here is whether the First Amendment prevents Illinois prosecutors from enforcing the eavesdropping statute against people who openly record police officers performing their official duties in public. More specifically, the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois (“ACLU”) challenges the statute as applied to the organization’s Chicago-area “police accountability program,” which includes a plan to openly make audiovisual recordings of police officers performing their duties in public places and speaking at a volume audible to bystanders. Concerned that its videographers would be prosecuted under the eavesdropping statute, the ACLU has not yet implemented the program. Instead, it filed this preenforcement action against Anita Alvarez, the Cook County State’s Attorney, asking for declaratory and injunctive relief barring her from enforcing the statute on these facts. The ACLU moved for a preliminary injunction.
Faced with so obvious a test case, the district court proceeded with some skepticism. The judge dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, holding that the ACLU had not sufficiently alleged a threat of prosecution. The ACLU tried again, submitting a new complaint addressing the court’s concerns. This time, the judge held that the ACLU had cured the original defect but had “not alleged a cognizable First Amendment injury” because the First Amendment does not protect a “right to audio record.” The judge denied leave to amend. The ACLU appealed.
We reverse and remand with instructions to allow the amended complaint and enter a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the eavesdropping statute as applied to audio recording of the kind alleged here. The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts a medium of expression commonly used for the preservation and communication of information and ideas, thus triggering First Amendment scrutiny. Illinois has criminalized the nonconsensual recording of most any oral communication, including recordings of public officials doing the public’s business in public and regardless of whether the recording is open or surreptitious. Defending the broad sweep of this statute, the State’s Attorney relies on the government’s interest in protecting conversational privacy, but that interest is not implicated when police officers are performing their duties in public places and engaging in public communications audible to persons who witness the events. Even under the more lenient intermediate standard of scrutiny applicable to contentneutral burdens on speech, this application of the statute very likely flunks. The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests; as applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment’s freespeech and free-press guarantees.
[snip]
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant cert and hear an appeal of the case, letting the decision of the 7th Circuit stand.
630. The Legislature hereby declares that advances in science and
technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques
for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications and that
the invasion of privacy resulting from the continual and increasing
use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to
the free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a
free and civilized society.
The Legislature by this chapter intends to protect the right of
privacy of the people of this state.
The Legislature recognizes that law enforcement agencies have a
legitimate need to employ modern listening devices and techniques in
the investigation of criminal conduct and the apprehension of
lawbreakers. Therefore, it is not the intent of the Legislature to
place greater restraints on the use of listening devices and
techniques by law enforcement agencies than existed prior to the
effective date of this chapter.
- - - - -
631. (a) Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or
contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any
unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically,
acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or
telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line,
cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication
system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to
the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts
to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report,
or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any
wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place
within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner,
or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so
obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any
person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done
any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is
punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170,
or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or pursuant to
subdivision (h) of Section 1170. If the person has previously been
convicted of a violation of this section or Section 632, 632.5,
632.6, 632.7, or 636, he or she is punishable by a fine not exceeding
ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the county
jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to
subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and
imprisonment.
(b) This section shall not apply (1) to any public utility engaged
in the business of providing communications services and facilities,
or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts
otherwise prohibited herein are for the purpose of construction,
maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and facilities of
the public utility, or (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment,
facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a
public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used
for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and
county, or city correctional facility.
(c) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of
this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall
be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other
proceeding.
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1994.
- - - - -
632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among
the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph,
telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the
county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine
and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of
this section
or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by
imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the
state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) The term "person" includes an individual, business association,
partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and
an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or
subdivision thereof, whether federal, state, or local, but excludes an
individual known by all parties to a confidential communication to be
overhearing or recording the communication.(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication
carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the
communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes
a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial,
executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect
that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
(d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of
this section, no evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon
or recording a confidential communication in violation of this
section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative,
legislative, or other proceeding.
(e) This section does not apply (1) to any public utility engaged
in the business of providing communications services and facilities,
or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts
otherwise prohibited by this section are for the purpose of
construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and
facilities of the public utility, or (2) to the use of any
instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used
pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic
communication system used for communication exclusively within a
state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility.
(f) This section does not apply to the use of hearing aids and
similar devices, by persons afflicted with impaired hearing, for the
purpose of overcoming the impairment to permit the hearing of sounds ordinarily
audible to the human ear.
