[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Lawsuit Settlement Over Detainment Of A Journalist Will Force Denver Police Department To Admit The First Amendment Exists from the being-deliberately-wrong-is-just-playing-the-odds deptLast summer, Denver police officers decided the First Amendment didn't exist in the city, at least not while they were in the process of helping a naked black man get some medical attention by handcuffing him in the middle of the sidewalk. Denver PD officers Adam Paulsen and James Brooks noticed journalist Susan Greene filming the incident and decided she needed some law enforcement herself. So they approached her and told her to stop filming by citing an inapplicable law. For whatever reason, they also told her to "act like a lady." Greene was handcuffed and placed in a squad car for 12 minutes before a less-stupid cop contacted these officers and told them to release her. The whole incident was captured by officers' body cameras, including the repeated suggestion the journalist wasn't "acting like a lady" by contesting the officers' decision to cuff her and put her in the nearest squad car.
Here was the bullshit the cops used to try to shut Greene down:
To be clear, HIPAA isn't violated when officers perform an ultra-weird medical consultation in the middle of public street -- one that involves a strategically-draped towel and a pair of handcuffs. If this man was ultimately taken in for a medical/mental examination and those records were handed over to the reporter, that would be a HIPAA violation. Shooting footage of public servants on a public street performing their public duties doesn't violate the privacy of anyone, medical or otherwise. The officers also claimed she was interfering with the non-arrest the officers claimed they were not making, apparently oblivious of the fact that they had approached the journalist, rather than the other way around. They also trotted out the "stop resisting" canard to pre-exonerate themselves for their aggressive handling of a person armed with a camera. Throughout the entire thing -- at least all the way up till the settlement the city is planning to pay Susan Greene -- Denver PD brass acted with useless decorum. Shortly after the incident went public, Police Chief Paul Pazen said people were way too focused on officers ignoring the First Amendment, rather than expressing their concern for the naked person his officers had handcuffed in the middle of the sidewalk.
Actually, it was two people, chief. And they put themselves in a "bad light" with their actions. The public shouldn't be deterred from asking why police officers are violating Constitutional rights, even if there are other issues at play. More disheartening was the complaint process, in which one of the officer's supervisors pretty much said filing a complaint would be a waste of everyone's time.
Part of the system works. But it will still be citizens paying for it. Susan Greene is about to receive a payout from the city of Denver.
The officers who handcuffed and detained her were also punished… by losing two days of pay each. Finally, the Denver PD will be forced to refresh itself on the contours of Constitutional protections -- basic stuff these officers were certainly aware of before they decided government might beats First Amendment rights.
We know officers aren't expected to know the intricacies of the laws they enforce. In fact, they're barely expected to know anything about the multiple statutes they use to detain and arrest people. But we should expect them to know just enough about Constitutional protections to realize they can't handcuff a person just for filming them. The thing is, they very likely do know this. Some officers just choose to ignore this knowledge because they think they might get away with it. They didn't here, and now citizens will be footing the bill for these officers and their unwillingness to respect the rights of the people they're supposed to protect. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Biased authors are such disgusting people - but not quite as much as libertarians are. Salute, Gatlin
#2. To: Gatlin (#1) Not at all surprised to see your hatred for the first amendment on display once again. As long as it's cops infringing on those rights, it's swell with you, right boot-licker? ![]() Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. #3. To: Deckard (#2) As long as it's cops infringing on those rights, it's swell with you, right boot-licker? I did that. If my doing that pissed you off, then I effectively accomplished two things this morning already with satisfying results. When truth prevails over agenda, I say to everyone … Salute, Gatlin
#4. To: Gatlin (#1) His supposition is that the settlement will automatically be decoded for the plaintiff. Susan Greene is about to receive a payout from the city of Denver. The author frames his misleading ethical dilemma in a very misleading way: Lawsuit Settlement Over Detainment Of A Journalist Will Force Denver Police Department To Admit The First Amendment Exists Finally, the Denver PD will be forced to refresh itself on the contours of Constitutional protections -- basic stuff these officers were certainly aware of before they decided government might beats First Amendment rights. ![]() Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. #5. To: Gatlin (#3) (Edited) If my doing that pissed you off, Actually, I pity your ignorance. What is right with me was to point out the misleading way the author framed his presentation with a supposition. I debunked your absurd claim in my post #4 to you. ![]() Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. #6. To: Deckard (#5)
#7. To: Deckard (#4) (Edited) I debunked your absurd claim in my post #4 to you. Did it FORCE the PD to ADMIT anything? As the author so boldly stated it would.
#8. To: Gatlin (#7) Did it FORCE the PD to ADMIT anything? Asked and answered, but since you are still whining about it, I'll post it again. Finally, the Denver PD will be forced to refresh itself on the contours of Constitutional protections -- basic stuff these officers were certainly aware of before they decided government might beats First Amendment rights.
As part of the settlement, Denver agrees to significantly strengthen First Amendment and sensitivity trainings for police through at least 2024. The department also will update its policies on police bias and search and seizure of recording devices. ![]() Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. #9. To: Deckard (#8) (Edited) They were FORCED to do something. They never ADMITTED anything. There is a DEFINITE difference, asshole.
#10. To: Gatlin (#9) (Edited) They were FORCED to do something. Yada, yada, yada. Same shit - different day. They admitted that what they did was WRONG. Do you think they were wrong arresting a journalist who was recording them? ![]() Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. #11. To: Deckard (#10) They admitted that what they did was WRONG. Keep on telling yourself that. It will not change the fact that they NEVER ADMITTED any such thing. The were FORCED to comply with a court order. There is a BIG difference, asshole
#12. To: Deckard (#4) Susan Greene is about to receive a payout from the city of Denver.
#13. To: Gatlin (#12) Receiving “a payout” or “paying a fine” is NEVER an ADMISSION to ANYTHING. In this case, it is. The department instituted new policies and required better constitutional training as part of the settlement. In effect, that is a tacit admission of guilt. Are you going to answer this question, or are you going to weasel your way out of it again? Do you think they were wrong arresting a journalist who was recording them?
![]() Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. #14. To: Deckard (#13) In effect, that is a tacit admission of guilt.
#15. To: Gatlin (#14) Why is it always okay with you to readily accept and be extremely happy with the judgement of the court when it rules against the police Uh, maybe because cops should be held to a higher standard - when they violate the rights of the people, they deserve to be punished. and it is forever so wrong with you that you throw temper tantrums when the court rules in favor of the police? The only one I see throwing "temper tantrums" is you princess. I'm not going to stand by and watch you post your usual cop-worshiping screeds without putting you in your place. ![]() Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. #16. To: Deckard (#15) I'm not going to stand by and watch you post your usual cop-worshiping screeds without putting you in your place. Attempted many times by you and failed each time...
#17. To: Deckard, Gatlin (#4)
Lawsuit Settlement Over Detainment Of A Journalist Will Force Denver Police Department To Admit The First Amendment Exists It is not possible for the Denver Police Department to be a party of the lawsuit. It will not be forced to admit anything. As a legal entity, it does not exist.
Denver’s Police Department has agreed to a $50,000 settlement with Colorado Independent Editor Susan Greene Denver's Police Department will not pay anything.
Susan Greene is about to receive a payout from the city of Denver. That's better. The corporate municipality may be sued, and may pay.
#18. To: nolu chan (#17) Thank you.
#19. To: nolu chan (#17) That's better. The corporate municipality may be sued, and may pay. Isn't that a difference that makes no difference? The lawsuit may be paid off by the city from its treasury or by its insurance carrier as the city is the responsible governing entity of the PD and has deeper pockets. But it is difference without distinction since everyone knows it was the PD's actions which caused the lawsuit to be brought successfully. The distinction you are drawing is primarily one of who has the liability (the city) and who has the deeper pockets (the city). This is only accounting and legal talk that doesn't change the fact that city employees violated a journalist's rights. I don't think anyone really imagined that the Denver PD's police chief was writing a check from police department bank accounts.
#20. To: Deckard, nolu chan (#0) But we should expect them to know just enough about Constitutional protections to realize they can't handcuff a person just for filming them. The thing is, they very likely do know this. Some officers just choose to ignore this knowledge because they think they might get away with it. They didn't here, and now citizens will be footing the bill for these officers and their unwillingness to respect the rights of the people they're supposed to protect. I'd say that this was a deliberate attempt to ignore the laws. I don't doubt that the PD employees who arrested the woman knew that they were violating the law. They wanted instead to intimidate and this indicates that they have been trained or advised on how to intimidate people who are filming them and/or are attempting to develop methods to stop or greatly reduce such information gathering outside of their control. It reeks of preparedness for such an event, like the police were prepared to do exactly what they did. This was no accident or misunderstanding of the law. It was an attempt to push it as far as it could go. And to intimidate the public from filming police. I suspect, as usual, the largely unknown and unaccountable police training companies and the advice they hand out all over the country to various PDs.
#21. To: Tooconservative, Gatlin (#19)
That's better. The corporate municipality may be sued, and may pay. It is a distinction which demonstrates that the source does not know what the hell he is writing about. He simply rehashed someone else's story. As the PD is not a legal entity, it has no pockets whatever to pay a settlement. This time Cushing has written an entire article about a settlement agreement that does not exist, although some readers seem to imagine that it does. It is not a distinction without a difference that the Police Department has no authority to enter into any legally binding agreement. The city attorney can't just bind the city either. Any actual settlement agreement valued at more than $5,000 requires the agreement of the city council. When the council gets to see the proposed settlement, everything on the Christmas tree may be agreed to or not. The cops involved were each docked two days pay.
#22. To: nolu chan (#21) It is a distinction which demonstrates that the source does not know what the hell he is writing about. He simply rehashed someone else's story. As the PD is not a legal entity, it has no pockets whatever to pay a settlement. Yet the original article from which this one was essentially plagiarized had this as its first sentence: "Denver’s Police Department has agreed to a $50,000 settlement with Colorado Independent Editor Susan Greene, whose First Amendment rights officers violated when they wrongfully handcuffed and detained her for photographing police last summer." It isn't clear to me who was negotiating with the lady's lawyer(s), Susan Greene. The PD agreed to something, maybe just the training portion. Seems hard to believe that the PD has lawyers who negotiate such settlements themselves with no city oversight. I always thought that in a big city, the city lawyers would handle such matters. But perhaps I'm wrong and the city used lawyers that worked for the PD to negotiate with. Or maybe the city did negotiate the settlement with Greene's lawyers but the PD had to sign off on the new training requirements and they were consulted last so the original reporter just lumped all the most basic facts together to report that "Denver’s Police Department has agreed to a $50,000 settlement with Colorado Independent Editor Susan Greene..." as the first sentence in the article, an attempt at making the briefest possible summary statement. Perhaps the problem here is that the original reporting wasn't all that clear on the facts of which lawyers negotiated the settlement. And then the plagiarist from TechDirt decided to re-write the story so it could appear on their little content farm so they could generate hits, improve search engine ranking and display ads to TechDirt readers. The plagiarist probably produced the entire story in 15 minutes and made $5 or so for this little "article" produced by plagiarizing and quoting the original source, the Colorado Independent. Anyway, that is pretty typical for the workday of those who work for these content farms here in America and around the world. As for this being political news, well, not that much. The last paragraph of the original story was "On Monday, Denver’s council approved a $1.55 million legal settlement with a group of female sheriff’s deputies who work in the Denver jail and alleged workplace discrimination on the basis of sex." So this little First Amendment case probably got about 2 minutes of discussion and a vote to approve the payout from the Denver council before they moved on to pay off the whiny female jailers for $1.5M.
#23. To: Tooconservative, Gatlin (#22)
Yet the original article from which this one was essentially plagiarized had this as its first sentence: "Denver’s Police Department has agreed to a $50,000 settlement with Colorado Independent Editor Susan Greene, whose First Amendment rights officers violated when they wrongfully handcuffed and detained her for photographing police last summer." The sensationalized version selected for publication here at LF had the far more titilating introduction, "Last summer, Denver police officers decided the First Amendment didn't exist in the city...." Now, there is a guy who knows how to write about the law. But I am sure that if you were the deranged and detained man sitting there in your birthday suit, awaiting ambulance transportation, you and your ACLU lawyer would have no beef about the cops allowing a lady with a cell phone to take crotch shots of you. The Colorado Independent reported that,
[Police Chief Paul] Pazen declined to answer questions about the treatment of Greene, but he did say he thought his officers treated the nearly naked man with “respect and dignity.” He declined to answer why the man was also handcuffed, citing the ongoing investigation. The Colorado Independent reported complainant Greene said she plans to share the settlement money with the Independent, which is a nonprofit newsroom.
It isn't clear to me who was negotiating with the lady's lawyer(s), Susan Greene. Without looking it seemed clear to me that it had to be a representative of the City Attorney's Office. Who else could it be? The Chief of D's? The Colorado Independent reported, "Police Chief Paul Pazen could not be reached for comment Tuesday. A spokesman told The Independent to speak to the city attorney’s office instead." The Independent also reported, "The settlement requires final approval of the City Council, which must sign off on any payment above $5,000. Ryan Luby, spokesman for the City Attorney’s Office, said it’s unclear when the council will vote on this. “But certainly soon,” he said. Council President Jolon Clark said he had not yet received information on the settlement and so he could not comment."
Seems hard to believe that the PD has lawyers who negotiate such settlements themselves with no city oversight. I always thought that in a big city, the city lawyers would handle such matters. It seems impossible to believe that the PD has lawyers who negotiate such settlements. It's hard to believe a PD has its own legal division. That's what the City Attorney's Office is for. For prosecutions, there is the DA's office. The PD is not a seperate legal entity. It has no corporate legal existence.
The last paragraph of the original story was "On Monday, Denver’s council approved a $1.55 million legal settlement with a group of female sheriff’s deputies who work in the Denver jail and alleged workplace discrimination on the basis of sex." So this little First Amendment case probably got about 2 minutes of discussion and a vote to approve the payout from the Denver council before they moved on to pay off the whiny female jailers for $1.5M. The unrelated $1.55 million settlement was already approved as Ryan Luby, the spokesman for the City Attorney's Office, was stating the Greene proposal had to go to the City Council, and Council President Jolon Clark was stating he had not yet received information of the Greene proposal and could not comment. It is clear the sequence of events you ascribe is not possible.
Perhaps the problem here is that the original reporting wasn't all that clear on the facts of which lawyers negotiated the settlement. Perhaps the problem here is that the original reporting uses Susan Greene as its source for the content of the (allegedly proposed) settlement agreement. Lawyers do not typically negotiate the terms of a settlement agreement in the press. Presstitutes may do that crap. https://www.denverpost.com/2018/08/23/denver-police-detained-journalist-no-charges/
Denver officer accused of detaining Colorado journalist faces no charges - - - - - - - - - - https://muckrack.com/susan-greene
Susan Greene - - - - - - - - - - Non-profit news. Independent and non-partisan, like PBS. A non-profit journalist, accredited by a non-profit newsroom, is a lady on the street with her cell phone. A non-profit journalist is a former for-profit journalist who had her column canceled by the Denver Post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_journalism
Non-profit journalism
Subscribe to Publishers Daily
#24. To: nolu chan (#23) (Edited) But I am sure that if you were the deranged and detained man sitting there in your birthday suit, awaiting ambulance transportation, you and your ACLU lawyer would have no beef about the cops allowing a lady with a cell phone to take crotch shots of you. In public, it's fair game. If she published photos that actually showed his junk unobscured, she might get into trouble. Usually, nude dudes aren't in much condition to object to anything because they're high on bath salts or crack or meth. And she didn't publish the nude dude's junk either. Nor did the cops know she was a journalista when they approached her and started ordering her around and manhandling her illegally. For which the city will pay rather dearly for about $5,000/minute for the 10 minutes they put her in their deluxe paddywagon.
Without looking it seemed clear to me that it had to be a representative of the City Attorney's Office. Who else could it be? The Chief of D's? Well, yeah, that's what I thought too. I suppose it's possible that a local law firm handles police brutality cases for the city but you'd think that they would just staff up their own prosecutor's office instead because it would cost less longterm and keep the work in-house.
Perhaps the problem here is that the original reporting uses Susan Greene as its source for the content of the (allegedly proposed) settlement agreement. Lawyers do not typically negotiate the terms of a settlement agreement in the press. Presstitutes may do that crap. In most cases, the client will know from their own lawyer who is the opposing counsel. But it is the free newspaper people. Denver still has several of them like the Denver Westword (the biggest) and newcomers like Denver Voice. I think they still have their old channel 12 independent public broadcasting station in Broomfield (separate from the official PBS station). I even stumbled over a mention that Colorado Springs revived the Echo, 2 years after its longtime publisher had died. So being pissant free-newspaper people, they're going to maximize their publicity by any means. You seem a little familiar with the Front Range. So am I.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|||||
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|