Title: Cop Slams Mom’s Face to the Ground Over Tinted Plate Cover as She Dropped Her Kids Off at School Source:
Free Thought Project/WFAL URL Source:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/co ... ids-school-tinted-plate-cover/ Published:Aug 29, 2015 Author:Matt Agorist Post Date:2015-08-29 16:59:28 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:7967 Comments:67
As Liz Vargas was walking her daughter into school on November 5, officer Kevin Fitzpatrick heroically swooped in to protect the citizens of Tampa from Vargas’ tinted license plate cover.
Not having done anything wrong, and upset that she was being harassed in front of her children, Vargas voiced her discontent.
“Then because I was in my pj’s he called me bummy, and he accused me of illegal drugs, that’s why I got argumentative,” Vargas said of the incident.
Within 34 seconds of his encounter with Vargas, Fitzpatrick grabbed her wrist and had slammed the innocent woman to the ground, face first.
After being brutally assaulted in front of her child by police, Vargas retained attorney Brett Szematowicz.
“At best that could be explained away that he thought there was an officer safety issue with her pointing up at the sky, but he never said he ordered her back in the car, he never said he felt threatened by her actions at any point,” Szematowicz said.
As early as February, Szematowicz said they requested video of the incident from police, but he said they told him there was no tape.
According to WFLA,
The Tampa police department claims it never denied the video existed. In other cases it is common for officers to acknowledge there is video evidence, by writing “video” on criminal report affidavits. Fitzpatrick put a slash mark through the “evidence box” indicating there was no evidence. Hegarty isn’t sure why Fitzpatrick didn’t write in “video” but insists no one at T-P-D- denied that the video existed.
But if you watch the video, it becomes quite apparent as to why Fitzpatrick would have claimed it didn’t exist.
After repeated attempts at obtaining the video, it was finally released in July. The video clearly shows a uniformed assailant, Fitzpatrick, assault an innocent woman, Vargas.
Despite this video evidence, however, an internal ‘investigation’ into the incident cleared Fitzpatrick of any wrongdoing. Tampa police claim that Fitzpatrick had no other option to “control Vargas” other than slamming her face-first into the ground.
Szematowicz feels that the investigation is incomplete. “They left out why he was grabbing her in the first place and to us as her criminal defense attorneys that is the most critical part,” he said.
This entire ordeal was over a tinted license plate cover that can be purchased at auto parts stores throughout the state of Florida.
“…all letters, numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates regarding the word “Florida,” the registration decal, and the alphanumeric designation shall be clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.”
Despite the low quality of the video, we can see on the officer’s own dashcam that Vargas’ plate was legible.
The precedent set after failing to hold Fitzpatrick accountable is that police can initiate violence against citizens for no reason, even innocent mothers, in front of their children, and this is “following procedure.”
Shall I show you case law where tinted or even clear plastic covers are still deemed to be an obstruction of the plate?
It's a valid stop... courts in every state has upheld this after someone like you challenged the citation. Your complaint shouldn't be with the cops, it should be with the law makers that wrote the law and the states highest courts that uphold the plate covers as a violation... but hating law makers and judges doesn't really help you get your sheep followers to hate cops and the "war on drugs", does it?
Shall I show you case law where tinted or even clear plastic covers are still deemed to be an obstruction of the plate?
It's a valid stop... courts in every state has upheld this after someone like you challenged the citation.
The plate is obscured. It appears to be angular obscurement covers designed to defeat traffic cameras shooting at a downward angle. It may be unintentional. That the plate may be read at one angle and not another does not defeat the statute.
The 2015 Florida Statutes Title XXIII MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 320
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSES
320.061 Unlawful to alter motor vehicle registration certificates, license plates, temporary license plates, mobile home stickers, or validation stickers or to obscure license plates; penalty.—A person may not alter the original appearance of a vehicle registration certificate, license plate, temporary license plate, mobile home sticker, or validation sticker issued for and assigned to a motor vehicle or mobile home, whether by mutilation, alteration, defacement, or change of color or in any other manner. A person may not apply or attach a substance, reflective matter, illuminated device, spray, coating, covering, or other material onto or around any license plate which interferes with the legibility, angular visibility, or detectability of any feature or detail on the license plate or interferes with the ability to record any feature or detail on the license plate. A person who violates this section commits a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.
History.—s. 9, ch. 28186, 1953; s. 3, ch. 69-178; s. 192, ch. 71-136; s. 3, ch. 72-79; s. 7, ch. 77-357; s. 15, ch. 83-318; s. 33, ch. 96-413; s. 23, ch. 2007-196; s. 25, ch. 2010-162; s. 32, ch. 2012-181.
Placing a tinted plate cover over a license plate, ALTERS the "original appearance".
So, let's beat the shit out of mommies that drive their kids to skool. Let's make a mockery out of common sense and reasonable policing duty by beating the snot out of a mommie to enforce the law.
Your rationalization of fact to support the pure beating of a mommie driving her kids to skool *IS* the POLICE STATE.
Your rationalization of fact to support the pure beating of a mommie
I'm smart enough to know she wasn't beaten for the plate cover... she was physically handled because she resisted arrest for a lawful V&T charge... and acted just like you recklessly preach.
When you can understand that people aren't manhandled because of a taillight, a plate cover or speeding, but resisting and obstructing, you'll "rationalize" like a normal thinker.
Passing blame and making excuses for criminals has been a (D) platform staple for over 75 years. Why don't you join the black lives matter movement... Hell, your pal Deckard already posts their YELLA articles. lol
Excessive force is to be accepted by the publick in a POLICE STATE, correct?
Excessive force can never be tollarated... but relying on YOU to determine what's "excessive" is like asking a whore how many sexual partners are too many.
Excessive force can never be tollarated... but relying on YOU to determine what's "excessive" is like asking a whore how many sexual partners are too many.
So, slamming mommie's head into the asphalt is "love" by the POLICE STATE and is not to be considered excessive force?
So, slamming mommie's head into the asphalt is "love" by the POLICE STATE and is not to be considered excessive force?
Many times I've hit my head on the ground fighting with one of your friends... shit like that happens when you engage in a takedown to control a subject unwilling to be placed in custody. Sometime their heads hit the ground as well... however between the officer and the shitbirds, only one has choices... and that's the shitbirds. The officer reacts to the actions of your dysfunctional pals.
I doubt he intentionally slammed her head against the ground any more than I intentionally slammed mine when arresting a resisting turdbird... that you chronically defend.
